11 ms·

One constant through all of this, across millenia, is the helmet so. Something modern armies re-learned the hard way in WW1. After all, despite what fantasy an

by hef19898 3y ago

One constant through all of this, across millenia, is the helmet so. Something modern armies re-learned the hard way in WW1. After all, despite what fantasy and roleplaying games say, a helmet is and was the most important, and first, piece of armor to get.

thechao 3y ago
And spears! Helmet + spear (with a shield of some sort: on the arm, in a trench, composite) is as near to the Universal Hominid Combat System as I think possible.
- bane 3y ago
  I agree. One thing that many people don't really comprehend was how little combat occurred with swords vs how much occurred with spears and ranged weapons. The typical view of a samurai or a knight in heavy armor swinging a sword around is a view of that soldier at likely their last moments. They most likely had started with weapons that provided greater standoff from their opponents and only when those weapons were irretrievably lost would they have drawn their sword. Weapons form part of systems, and for thousands upon thousands of years, a pointy bit at the end of a long stick dominated most systems across the planet. The Ancient Chinese called the spear the "King of Weapons" and over the centuries developed a very large number of variants and included shield and armor. The Europeans likewise underwent a period of rapid polearm evolution from the Renaissance to almost WW1. Shaka Zulu, one of the great military minds of Africa became famous in part for reworking the traditional spears of the Zulu into hybrid spear/swords backed by shields in tight formations. Prior to this the Phalanx was a spear-first strategy, and the Roman Infantry worked with more flexible spear and shield configurations -- the gladius was not a deciding weapon and may have been kept so short in order to support close-in work behind the shield wall of a Roman formation. So dominate was the methods for employing spears in combat that armies that went all-in on firearms still marched in the same type of formations as they had with spears well into the 19th century. The World Wars finally broke that habit.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Spears, true, those aged incredibly well. And shields, used by police forces to this day, either for crowd control of tactical interventions.
- nordsieck 3y ago
  I think spears (I'm including rifle mounted bayonets here) have pretty much been on the outs since magazine fed firearms became a thing. Definitely since the advent of fully automatic guns. Yes, there have been sporadic bayonet charges in recent times. But they've become extremely rare. In contrast, helmets are as useful as ever. The ballistic protection is improving with the move from resin impregnated Kevelar to UHMWPE[1]. And they're an important mounting point for hearing protection/headphones and night vision - so much so that some people forego ballistic protection entirely in favor of lighter weight "bump" helmets. Heck - "breastplates" have made a comeback in the form of body armor vests, being a sort of combination armor and utility pouch anchor point. --- 1. Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene
  - bane 3y ago
    Isn't the rifle really just a modern spear? Armies with longer spears used to be the one of the deciding factors in ancient battles. Aren't rifles just a more effective way at getting the sharpy bit in to the other guy without having to heft a small tree?
  - jabl 3y ago
    > Yes, there have been sporadic bayonet charges in recent times. But they've become extremely rare. Bayonet charges yes, but a bayonet (or in modern times, more like fastening a knife to the assault rifle) can be nice to have as a sort of last-ditch thing in a close-quarters situation.
    - nordsieck 3y ago
      > a bayonet (or in modern times, more like fastening a knife to the assault rifle) I mean... that is what a bayonet is. There's a reason why military rifles still come with bayonet lugs on them. > a bayonet ... can be nice to have as a sort of last-ditch thing in a close-quarters situation. There are a lot of downsides to a bayonet. 1. It's a sharp knife sticking out the end of your rifle. So if you have to transition to a shotgun or sidearm and it flops down to your side because it's on a sling, it could cut you. It can also cut a teammate on accident depending on what you're doing. 2. It increases the length of your rifle by 4-6 inches. Which is huge when it comes to room clearing. There's a reason why 10"-12" barrel rifles are so popular in that role - it's way easier to maneuver through doorways and around obstacles. It's also weight added to the end of the rifle. Not a huge amount, but 2/3 of a pound can still be a problem. Especially if you're fighting off and on for hours. 3. It takes up space and weight allowance on your belt or vest. It could have been 1-2 extra mags. Most people just wouldn't consider it a good tradeoff.
jcalx 3y ago
This (excellent) series on armor in order [1] agrees. Throughout all of history, protecting heads and torsos is the top priority for armor. Everything else follows, especially given pre-modern cost and weight restrictions. [1] https://acoup.blog/2019/05/03/collections-armor-in-order-part-i/ https://acoup.blog/2019/05/03/collections-armor-in-order-par...
MilStdJunkie 3y ago
Can't put a premium on head protection. It's not just brain injury - it's where all your sense organs are, as well. Stuff flying into your eyes and ears will make you combat ineffective even if you're not concussed. It tends to be the first thing to get hit when something falls (or is dropped!) on you, not an uncommon thing to have happen in premodern war. Or even in modern war. Furthermore, it's where most of your environmental heat loss occurs, so you'll want something on your dome no matter what. Might as well add some leather/horn/wood/metal. Head protection probably naturally flowed from protective headgear worn against the environment, which can be seen in decorative ceramics as far back as 25,000 BC. It might very well cross Hominid species boundaries, as the spread and success of H. Erectus was based at least partly on fire usage. Today, many species of Pongines use large leaves and other material as semi-wearable rain shelters; it's a habit the locals have picked up, as well. Soft armor, who knows? Textiles don't age well, unfortunately. The first signs of military helmets (and shields!) very nearly precede the earliest dates for domestic agriculture, lending weight to the growing view that coercion led to centralized agricultural statism, rather than the reverse, which is the more standard, traditional view. The "Meskalamdug Helmet" is a a highly-ornamented example of an early helm, stylized in such a way that suggests the form of the infantry helm was a recognizable semiotic to contemporaries. You don't build a statue of a cell phone in 1880s London, so they made it look that way for a reason. And again we come to morale. A helmet de-humanizes the soldier, both to the enemy and to allies, which keeps combatants from engaging in normal nonverbal communication. Restrict empathy, and you increase the chance of violence and the strength of the violence when it does happen. So you wear a mask when you do it, a scary one, like a lion head or an angry fire being. It's pretty common-sense stuff - I mean, look at the plumes on the Spartan's helm - but it's cross-cultural as well, which hints at a deeper principle. Helmets from the Neolithic far east seem to have developed this aspect first, as they start out from ceremonial pottery, then the same design reinforced with basketry, and then you have the same design as a lacquer mask on a more dedicated military helmet. We do have to be very careful here, because the pattern of civilization building is just very, very different in China, and probably all over. It's deceptive, you're tempted to think of it the same, but look at the details of the timeline and you realize whoa, hold up a second, they did this waaaayyyy before this other thing.

thechao 3y ago

And spears! Helmet + spear (with a shield of some sort: on the arm, in a trench, composite) is as near to the Universal Hominid Combat System as I think possible.

bane 3y ago
I agree. One thing that many people don't really comprehend was how little combat occurred with swords vs how much occurred with spears and ranged weapons. The typical view of a samurai or a knight in heavy armor swinging a sword around is a view of that soldier at likely their last moments. They most likely had started with weapons that provided greater standoff from their opponents and only when those weapons were irretrievably lost would they have drawn their sword. Weapons form part of systems, and for thousands upon thousands of years, a pointy bit at the end of a long stick dominated most systems across the planet. The Ancient Chinese called the spear the "King of Weapons" and over the centuries developed a very large number of variants and included shield and armor. The Europeans likewise underwent a period of rapid polearm evolution from the Renaissance to almost WW1. Shaka Zulu, one of the great military minds of Africa became famous in part for reworking the traditional spears of the Zulu into hybrid spear/swords backed by shields in tight formations. Prior to this the Phalanx was a spear-first strategy, and the Roman Infantry worked with more flexible spear and shield configurations -- the gladius was not a deciding weapon and may have been kept so short in order to support close-in work behind the shield wall of a Roman formation. So dominate was the methods for employing spears in combat that armies that went all-in on firearms still marched in the same type of formations as they had with spears well into the 19th century. The World Wars finally broke that habit.
hef19898 3y ago
Spears, true, those aged incredibly well. And shields, used by police forces to this day, either for crowd control of tactical interventions.
nordsieck 3y ago
I think spears (I'm including rifle mounted bayonets here) have pretty much been on the outs since magazine fed firearms became a thing. Definitely since the advent of fully automatic guns. Yes, there have been sporadic bayonet charges in recent times. But they've become extremely rare. In contrast, helmets are as useful as ever. The ballistic protection is improving with the move from resin impregnated Kevelar to UHMWPE[1]. And they're an important mounting point for hearing protection/headphones and night vision - so much so that some people forego ballistic protection entirely in favor of lighter weight "bump" helmets. Heck - "breastplates" have made a comeback in the form of body armor vests, being a sort of combination armor and utility pouch anchor point. --- 1. Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene
- bane 3y ago
  Isn't the rifle really just a modern spear? Armies with longer spears used to be the one of the deciding factors in ancient battles. Aren't rifles just a more effective way at getting the sharpy bit in to the other guy without having to heft a small tree?
- jabl 3y ago
  > Yes, there have been sporadic bayonet charges in recent times. But they've become extremely rare. Bayonet charges yes, but a bayonet (or in modern times, more like fastening a knife to the assault rifle) can be nice to have as a sort of last-ditch thing in a close-quarters situation.
  - nordsieck 3y ago
    > a bayonet (or in modern times, more like fastening a knife to the assault rifle) I mean... that is what a bayonet is. There's a reason why military rifles still come with bayonet lugs on them. > a bayonet ... can be nice to have as a sort of last-ditch thing in a close-quarters situation. There are a lot of downsides to a bayonet. 1. It's a sharp knife sticking out the end of your rifle. So if you have to transition to a shotgun or sidearm and it flops down to your side because it's on a sling, it could cut you. It can also cut a teammate on accident depending on what you're doing. 2. It increases the length of your rifle by 4-6 inches. Which is huge when it comes to room clearing. There's a reason why 10"-12" barrel rifles are so popular in that role - it's way easier to maneuver through doorways and around obstacles. It's also weight added to the end of the rifle. Not a huge amount, but 2/3 of a pound can still be a problem. Especially if you're fighting off and on for hours. 3. It takes up space and weight allowance on your belt or vest. It could have been 1-2 extra mags. Most people just wouldn't consider it a good tradeoff.

jcalx 3y ago

This (excellent) series on armor in order [1] agrees. Throughout all of history, protecting heads and torsos is the top priority for armor. Everything else follows, especially given pre-modern cost and weight restrictions. [1] https://acoup.blog/2019/05/03/collections-armor-in-order-part-i/ https://acoup.blog/2019/05/03/collections-armor-in-order-par...

MilStdJunkie 3y ago

Can't put a premium on head protection. It's not just brain injury - it's where all your sense organs are, as well. Stuff flying into your eyes and ears will make you combat ineffective even if you're not concussed. It tends to be the first thing to get hit when something falls (or is dropped!) on you, not an uncommon thing to have happen in premodern war. Or even in modern war. Furthermore, it's where most of your environmental heat loss occurs, so you'll want something on your dome no matter what. Might as well add some leather/horn/wood/metal. Head protection probably naturally flowed from protective headgear worn against the environment, which can be seen in decorative ceramics as far back as 25,000 BC. It might very well cross Hominid species boundaries, as the spread and success of H. Erectus was based at least partly on fire usage. Today, many species of Pongines use large leaves and other material as semi-wearable rain shelters; it's a habit the locals have picked up, as well. Soft armor, who knows? Textiles don't age well, unfortunately. The first signs of military helmets (and shields!) very nearly precede the earliest dates for domestic agriculture, lending weight to the growing view that coercion led to centralized agricultural statism, rather than the reverse, which is the more standard, traditional view. The "Meskalamdug Helmet" is a a highly-ornamented example of an early helm, stylized in such a way that suggests the form of the infantry helm was a recognizable semiotic to contemporaries. You don't build a statue of a cell phone in 1880s London, so they made it look that way for a reason. And again we come to morale. A helmet de-humanizes the soldier, both to the enemy and to allies, which keeps combatants from engaging in normal nonverbal communication. Restrict empathy, and you increase the chance of violence and the strength of the violence when it does happen. So you wear a mask when you do it, a scary one, like a lion head or an angry fire being. It's pretty common-sense stuff - I mean, look at the plumes on the Spartan's helm - but it's cross-cultural as well, which hints at a deeper principle. Helmets from the Neolithic far east seem to have developed this aspect first, as they start out from ceremonial pottery, then the same design reinforced with basketry, and then you have the same design as a lacquer mask on a more dedicated military helmet. We do have to be very careful here, because the pattern of civilization building is just very, very different in China, and probably all over. It's deceptive, you're tempted to think of it the same, but look at the details of the timeline and you realize whoa, hold up a second, they did this waaaayyyy before this other thing.