Indeed, armor in modern presentations seems pretty useless. But these people were paying a lot for it, and using it, so it must have been better than that. The end of this fight always makes me chuckle as well (relevant part starts at 0:37):
I once saw a documentary where they tested Roman weapons - specifically the crossbow-like "scorpion" - on Roman armour. It could handle it even at point-blank range. Their conclusion was that the soldier inside the armour would die, but not for several hours. Meanwhile, he would be healthy enough to continue fighting.
Scorpion had much more kinetic energy and armor-piercing power than any individual weapon. It was a pre-gunpowder artillery weapon, rather than an individual missile weapon. By individual weapons I mean weapons that could be carried and used in battle by just 1 soldier - scorpion was not one of them.
Scoprions were used to fire various kinds of projectiles - not just arrow-like ones (but longer & more massive than arrows), also stones.
============================================
Edit:
And it still didn't pierce that Roman armour?! Lol - that's rather shocking! What armour was that - lorica segmentata or hamata or both?
Maybe their reconstruction of a Roman scorpion was not as good as the real ones.
Their conclusion was that the soldier inside the armour would die, but not for several hours. Meanwhile, he would be healthy enough to continue fighting.
I don't think he would be able to continue fighting - pain had to be terrible, and the internal injuries were mortal anyway as you write.
Perhaps if he was really very tough or had some very good painkilling drugs - then maybe. But just maybe.
Like the 19th century Zulu "berserkers" - who received huge portions of hallucinatory drugs (some mushrooms) before combat.
Those "berserkers" continued to charge British lines after being hit by (even multiple) Dum-dum bullets, according to some accounts. It was quite desperate because those mushrooms were killing those "berserkers" anyway - after several hours from overdosing. But in the meantime they could kill some British.
Here is the source for those "berserkers" (grandson of one of warriors who fought in the battle speaks about this):
But it does not mean that those "human hedgehogs" were totally unharmed.
Most likely - they had a number of more or less serious wounds all over their body, because some of those arrows certainly reached their skin and flesh. However - penetration was not deep enough to kill them, considering that they were still moving. And many arrows probably didn't even reach their skin.
But it doesn't mean, that they were totally healthy and unharmed. Most certainly they were wounded - maybe even seriously, in some cases they could die from excessive blood loss after becoming such "hedgehogs". Also - such a hedgehog in many cases was probably not able to continue fighting.
We shouldn't go from one extreme to the other - while armour for sure provided a lot of protection from arrows, it was not an invincible defence. While it is true that if armour was as useless as some claim, it would not be used - let us not forget that the same must be also true for bows and arrows.
Scorpion had much more kinetic energy and armor-piercing power than any individual weapon. It was a pre-gunpowder artillery weapon, rather than an individual missile weapon. By individual weapons I mean weapons that could be carried and used in battle by just 1 soldier - scorpion was not one of them.
Scoprions were used to fire various kinds of projectiles - not just arrow-like ones (but longer & more massive than arrows), also stones.
============================================
Edit:
And it still didn't pierce that Roman armour?! Lol - that's rather shocking! What armour was that - lorica segmentata or hamata or both?
Maybe their reconstruction of a Roman scorpion was not as good as the real ones.
I don't think he would be able to continue fighting - pain had to be terrible, and the internal injuries were mortal anyway as you write.
Perhaps if he was really very tough or had some very good painkilling drugs - then maybe. But just maybe.
I should have clarified that this was the smallest known version of the scorpion, basically a largish crossbow. And they determined that the internal injuries, while painful, would not be so painful the soldier would not be able to continue in combat. It was some time ago, but I believe the armour was segmentata.
Too many useful physical technologies. You mean the ones used the most?
Wallet.
Instruments like 'knives' 'ropes' ect., that allow us to protect ourselves.
Clothing.
Medicines and medical procedures.
Communication devices.
Knowledge devices.
Proper procedure discussions, ect.,.
Cosmetics and luxury items are probably not as important imo.
Emphasis on "modern." The mass mobilization that began last century would have been impossible without radio. Think of what the Nazis would have been if Goebbels was limited to newspapers.
Emphasis on "modern." The mass mobilization that began last century would have been impossible without radio. Think of what the Nazis would have been if Goebbels was limited to newspapers.
Hang on, in what way is mass mobilisation an essential part of being a nation-state?
Incidentally, that idea actually was a product of the French Revolution, or, more specifically, the wars of its immediate aftermath. As war intensified and volunteers became inadequate to support the huge French army, the Convention issued the following:
The levée en masse said:
Every Frenchman is called upon to defend Liberty... from this moment, until such time as its enemies shall have been driven from the soil of the Republic, all Frenchmen are in permanent requisition for the services of the armies
Immediately afterward, the French Army had 1,500,000 men under arms, out of a population of 28 million - that's more than 10% of male French citizens in the army; about 6% of the overall population. Currently, 6.1% of the population of North Korea are serving in the military; this is the largest such proportion in the world. That gives you an idea of the scale of French militarisation in that period.
*sigh* "Modern" nation-state. Obviously mass-mobilisation isn't necessary for states to exist; just look at Mongolia, just to name one example. But a fully-industrialised, modern nation-state is not possible without some form of instantaneous - or nearly so - communication which can reach across a large area. Newspapers fulfil some of this role, but they simply can't compete with radio, much as radio can't compete with television.
Immediately afterward, the French Army had 1,500,000 men under arms, out of a population of 28 million - that's more than 10% of male French citizens in the army; about 6% of the overall population.
It took a year from the issuance of the levée en masse proclamation for the French army's theoretical paper strength to reach one million men, many if not most of which were not "under arms". Of that million, 800,000 at most were actually present in ranks at some point in 1794, and probably considerably fewer. Subtract the physical strength of the French army before the levée en masse - probably 300,000ish, it's incredibly hard to tell. Discount the soldiers who had been drafted into the ranks directly from some militia formation or other, an unquantifiable amount.
What we are left with is that the Convention pressed significantly less than half a million men into military service over the course of a year. That is still nothing to scoff at, of course. But it hardly compares with anything a "modern" nation-state with access to electronic communications could pull off.
*sigh* "Modern" nation-state. Obviously mass-mobilisation isn't necessary for states to exist; just look at Mongolia, just to name one example. But a fully-industrialised, modern nation-state is not possible without some form of instantaneous - or nearly so - communication which can reach across a large area. Newspapers fulfil some of this role, but they simply can't compete with radio, much as radio can't compete with television.
But doesn't that make your statement a tautology? Modern nation states are characterized by their use of radio communication, therefore modern nation states couldn't exist without the invention of radio?
*sigh* "Modern" nation-state. Obviously mass-mobilisation isn't necessary for states to exist; just look at Mongolia, just to name one example. But a fully-industrialised, modern nation-state is not possible without some form of instantaneous - or nearly so - communication which can reach across a large area. Newspapers fulfil some of this role, but they simply can't compete with radio, much as radio can't compete with television.
I'm curious as to what, in your mind, makes a modern nation-state - is it full industrialisation? The capacity for total warfare? Without any of these things, does it cease to be a nation-state?
Had a nasty feeling it was as such - I plead poetic license for effect. Or possibly idiocy.
"Immediately" - nope.
1.5 million men under arms - nope.
It took a year from the issuance of the levée en masse proclamation for the French army's theoretical paper strength to reach one million men, many if not most of which were not "under arms".
What we are left with is that the Convention pressed significantly less than half a million men into military service over the course of a year. That is still nothing to scoff at, of course. But it hardly compares with anything a "modern" nation-state with access to electronic communications could pull off.
Indeed - my point wasn't that the French Army in that time undertook a mobilisation comparable to that of (say) the British Army in 1914 or the German in 1944, but that the concept of mass mobilisation does not depend on advanced communications. The fact was that 'the nation' could still mobilise for war in terrifying quantity without radio or television: indeed, most people did not have radios in their home in 1914.
Wasn't the British army relying heavily on volunteers in the 1st phase of WW1?
Yes - I'm referring to the general transformation, beginning in 1914, from a peace-time force devised for imperial peacekeeping to an army of millions able to fight in a continental war. This includes both volunteering - helped by the spread of propaganda - and, later, conscription.
But doesn't that make your statement a tautology? Modern nation states are characterized by their use of radio communication, therefore modern nation states couldn't exist without the invention of radio?
Radio enabled modern nation-states. Without radio, nation-states were confined to spreading their message among the literate via newspapers, which significantly hampered both the speed and the scope of communication. Radio enabled the state to reach the non-literate masses, and enabled virtually instantaneous communication. It's also a well-known fact that people respond more to the sound of a human voice than to words on a page. It's more emotive, for one thing. Television is an improvement over radio, but radio really began the age of near-instantaneous mass-communication.
I'm curious as to what, in your mind, makes a modern nation-state - is it full industrialisation? The capacity for total warfare? Without any of these things, does it cease to be a nation-state?
I wouldn't say full industrialisation. Large-scale industrialisation, yes. The capacity for total warfare is very important from an economic standpoint, but obviously not all countries possess this capability from a psychological standpoint, and vice versa. Paraguay certainly didn't have the capacity for total warfare from an economic standpoint in the War of the Triple Alliance, but it still made the attempt.
I don't think there's any hard-and-fast cut-off for a modern nation-state, but there is certainly a combination of factors - including the existence of a mostly-independent technocracy, large-scale state spending on welfare programs and the separation of the military and civilian government - which comprises modern nation-states. Yes, I'm aware that last condition removes Israel from the list; I have no issue with that.
One invention that does not get mentioned enough is the heavy "moldboard" plow that could turn over the soil, unlike the simpler ard, or scratch plow. This allowed much more of the Northern European Plain to be farmed.
Like the 19th century Zulu "berserkers" - who received huge portions of hallucinatory drugs (some mushrooms) before combat.
Those "berserkers" continued to charge British lines after being hit by (even multiple) Dum-dum bullets, according to some accounts. It was quite desperate because those mushrooms were killing those "berserkers" anyway - after several hours from overdosing. But in the meantime they could kill some British.
Here is the source for those "berserkers" (grandson of one of warriors who fought in the battle speaks about this):
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
