Metallurgy And Weapons And Tactics

[Kathleenb]

I have read that Romans did not temper their metals; does anyone know if their contemporary enemies, competitors, subjects used the tempering process and why Romans did not? (Any sources on this?)

 

Also, Rome often had numbers in its favor. It definitely had discipline and organization in its favor. How did its technology and weapons compare to its opponents, though? Rome used infantry and swords and fortifications and siegeworks; some opponents used horses and bows. Were there other differences and where did the advantages lay and why/how? (again, sources if you can)

 

I'm looking to use these items as minor points in a paper, but am interested in following up on my own.

 

Thanks.

[caldrail]

I'm suprised that the romans didn't temper their steel. Are you sure? I would have thought a soft steel blade wouldn't have lasted much longer than bronze. Or was it that early romans didn't?

 

As regards to technology in ancient weaponry, don't be misled. It isn't like today where technology can improve performance considerably. Back then, a blade either cut you or not. The bludgeoning damage was a function of weight and method of application rather than any intrinsic advantage. However - the shape and weight of a weapon as opposed to a particular armour type, given the correct style of fighting to take advantage of it, is the key. Chainmail breaks on a sharp point, so an impaling or thrusting weapon is better. Plate armour resists this and crushing damage too, although a heavy weight might deform the armour and injure its wearer. You see what I mean? Its horses for courses. If you use the right weapon with the right training, style, and aggression against a particular defence then you have an advantage. Otherwise you don't.

[Furius Venator]

You need to give some kind of timespan I think, the weapons/tactics the Romans used changed significantly at least three times:

 

pre Camillus

post Camillus

post Marius

post Constantine

 

(though probably the 'Camillan' reforms were over a fair time period while the other two were relatively rapid).

 

When you say 'Rome had numbers in her favour', do you mean in terms of troops engaged, total mobilised manpower or total manpower?

 

Rome;s opponents include:

 

Etruscans, Samnites etc

Carthaginians

Numidians

Hellenistic states

Gallic, Germanic, Iberian tribesmen

Dacians

Goths

 

etc etc

 

it's just too vast for a simple reply (especially with sources).

 

Narrow down your request to a specific time period would help.

 

Truly though, weapons and armour are not nearly as important as morale. They are not insignificant but superior weaponry seldom turned the day for the Romans, superior morale often did.

[caldrail]

Inferior weapons would have done nothing for moral or survival though...

[Furius Venator]

I agree, weapons and armour perceived to be good (which may not mean they were) would be very useful for morale.

 

But too often historians use the argument that (for instance) 'the combination of pilum and gladius was irresistable' and attribute success to superior arms and equipment.

[Pantagathus]

I have read that Romans did not temper their metals; does anyone know if their contemporary enemies, competitors, subjects used the tempering process and why Romans did not? (Any sources on this?)

 

You might want to look at Pliny's book on metals...

 

I can't remember what chapter but he talks for one about how the weapons produced in Bilbilis (town in Celtiberia) was renouned for their arms because of the tempering process related to the river Salo.

[Kosmo]

The weapons were partially tempered. I found some time ago a nice indepth look:

http://www.unc.edu/courses/rometech/public...oger/BLOOM4.htm

 

I rember seeing a Discovery documentary about high quality saxon swords. The swords were very similar with those of the samurai.

Still I don't think this differences played a vital part in war.

[caldrail]

I agree, weapons and armour perceived to be good (which may not mean they were) would be very useful for morale.

 

But too often historians use the argument that (for instance) 'the combination of pilum and gladius was irresistable' and attribute success to superior arms and equipment.

 

Yes, I see what you mean. I think the traditional gladius/pilum was a clever compromise that worked for the romans. Hence its success and the glowing reports by many historians. In the hands of a klutz, the weapons are no better than anyone elses, so training was a vital component.

 

I really cannot believe that tempered metal was unknown to roman swordsmiths. They made these things in massive quantities for a considerable period. The knowledge to work metal this well must have been known. It is possible though that certain areas had better or worse skills in metallurgy. Spanish steel had a high regard in ancient times that survived well beyond the renaissance.

Edited May 9, 2006 by caldrail

[Pantagathus]

The knowledge to work metal this well must have been known. It is possible though that certain areas had better or worse skills in metallurgy. Spanish steel had a high regard in ancient times that survived well beyond the renaissance.

 

Yes, and I have given quite specific reference information above. However, here it is from the horses' mouth:

 

"Iron ores are to be found almost everywhere; for they exist even in the Italian island of Ilva, being easily distinguished by the ferruginous colour of the earth. The method of working the ore is the same as that employed in the case of copper. In Cappadocia, however, it is peculiarly questionable whether this metal is a present due to the water or to the earth; because, when the latter has been saturated with the water of a certain river, it yields, and then only, an iron that may be obtained by smelting.

 

There are numerous varieties of iron ore; the chief causes of which arise from differences in the soil and in the climate. Some earths produce a metal that is soft, and nearly akin to lead; others an iron that is brittle and coppery, the use of which must be particularly avoided in making wheels or nails, the former kind being better for these purposes. There is another kind, again, which is only esteemed when cut into short lengths, and is used for making hobnails; and another which is more particularly liable to rust. All these varieties are known by the name of "strictura," an appellation which is not used with reference to the other metals, and is derived from the steel that is used for giving an edge. There is a great difference, too, in the smelting; some kinds producing knurrs of metal, which are especially adapted for hardening into steel, or else, prepared in another manner, for making thick anvils or heads of hammers. But the main difference results from the quality of the water into which the red-hot metal is plunged from time to time. The water, which is in some places better for this purpose than in others, has quite ennobled some localities for the excellence of their iron, Bilbilis, for example, and Turiasso in Spain, and Comum in Italy; and this, although there are no iron mines in these spots.

 

But of all the different kinds of iron, the palm of excellence is awarded to that which is made by the Seres, who send it to us with their tissues and skins; next to which, in quality, is the Parthian iron. Indeed, none of the other kinds of iron are made of the pure hard metal, a softer alloy being welded with them all. In our part of the world, a vein of ore is occasionally found to yield a metal of this high quality, as in Noricum for instance; but, in other cases, it derives its value from the mode of working it, as at Sulmo, for example, a result owing to the nature of its water, as already stated. It is to be observed also, that in giving an edge to iron, there is a great difference between oil-whetstones and water-whetstones, the use of oil producing a much finer edge. It is a remarkable fact, that when the ore is fused, the metal becomes liquefied like water, and afterwards acquires a spongy, brittle texture. It is the practice to quench smaller articles made of iron with oil, lest by being hardened in water they should be rendered brittle. Human blood revenges itself upon iron; for if the metal has been once touched by this blood it is much more apt to become rusty." - Pliny 34.41

 

-and-

 

"Of all metals, the ores of iron are found in the greatest abundance. In the maritime parts of Cantabria which are washed by the Ocean, there is a steep and lofty mountain, which, however incredible it may appear, is entirely composed of this metal, as already stated in our description of the parts bordering upon the Ocean

 

Iron which has been acted upon by fire is spoiled, unless it is forged with the hammer. It is not in a fit state for being hammered when it is red-hot, nor, indeed, until it has begun to assume a white heat. By sprinkling vinegar or alum upon it, it acquires the appearance of copper. It is protected from rust by an application of ceruse, gypsum, and tar; a property of iron known by the Greeks as "antipathia." Some pretend, too, that this may be ensured by the performance of certain religious ceremonies, and that there is in existence at the city of Zeugma, upon the Euphrates, an iron chain, by means of which Alexander the Great constructed a bridge across the river; the links of which that have been replaced are attacked with rust, while the original links are totally exempt from it." - Pliny 34.43

 

I have also read somewhere that one of the old Iberia tricks was to bury steel plates and let it rust. That way the weak portion of the metal would be eaten away and the surviving portion recast for use in swords.

Edited May 9, 2006 by Pantagathus

[caldrail]

The bit about rust is fascinating but does that actually work chemically? Does it result in 'stronger' metal? I doubt that, though I have to accept the Iberians knew a few things about making swords. More than I do anyway!

[Pantagathus]

The bit about rust is fascinating but does that actually work chemically?

 

I would think in regards to alloyed iron (steel) that would have natural variations, the concept is sound. But I'm not a metalurgist or blacksmith.

[Marc Antony]

But of all the different kinds of iron, the palm of excellence is awarded to that which is made by the Seres, who send it to us with their tissues and skins; next to which, in quality, is the Parthian iron. Indeed, none of the other kinds of iron are made of the pure hard metal, a softer alloy being welded with them all. In our part of the world, a vein of ore is occasionally found to yield a metal of this high quality, as in Noricum for instance; but, in other cases, it derives its value from the mode of working it, as at Sulmo, for example, a result owing to the nature of its water, as already stated.

 

Anyone knowing who is actually meant by "the Seres"? This footnote says that "this Seric iron has not been identified".

[Pantagathus]

Anyone knowing who is actually meant by "the Seres"?

 

Strabo, Pliny & Ptolemy place them near the Scythians in Asia. It seems they were from central Asia in what is in modern day west China. Their name indicating "where silk comes from"

[Pertinax]

Am I off -beam in asking is that "trans-oxonian?" Or would that be nearer the West ?

[Pantagathus]

Am I off -beam in asking is that "trans-oxonian?" Or would that be nearer the West ?

 

I don't quite follow?