Although I truly appreciate your strong convictions, I think you are a bit quick on drawing conclusions from sources that really are ambiguous. The Loades clip really tells us nothing of the context I describe and closes no case what so ever. As with all tests I have seen it is a flawed test.
Old battle-worn or badly made armour might be completely different. And we really don't know how common that was for different regions and periods. Perhaps certain types of helmets were more vulnerable? I can imagine spangenhelms that consist of bands held together by rivets and other bands may be weaker when damaged, for instance.
It is hard to draw conclusions either way in my opinion, since there are too many factors that are impossible or hard to quantify involved here, although we certainly agree that good armour is impossible to penetrate with a sword.
Several of the threads I linked to argue that armour can not be penetrated, btw. And they also discuss hardening and other related topics.
This forum is open for everyone to read, but only for registered users to post in. The discussion should still mainly concern Historical European Martial Arts and especially polearms, but is held openly, as opposed to the other forums.
- Roger N
- Site Admin
- Joined:Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:13 pm
- Weapons:Longsword, quarterstaff, dussack, dagger
- Location:Gothenburg, Sweden