The Psychological Effect of Armor in Combat - "He who dares wins" and he who feels comfy in battle dares more

[not william stenchever]

This image got me thinking about how armor in particular effects the psychology of someone entering combat (from left to right I think it goes Hastati, Velite, Triarii, and Princepes types of troop). Velites, being skirmishers, having no protection but a shield makes sense but the leftmost guy, the Hastati, is meant to be the first guy to go into melee combat and all he has for protection in a highly stabby environment is a "please don't stab me directly though the heart" plate and a shinguard for the forward leg in addition to his shield. That's probably good for a soldier that is required to finance his own equipment, but what effect does this have on battle psychology?

Ironically with this example I think the lighter nature of their equipment helps the Hastati fulfill their role better. They are intended to be the first force in full contact with the enemy and if they can't do the job they withdraw and let the second line, the Principes, go in. Being lighter makes tactical withdrawal easier in general and the regimentation probably makes it easier for one to withdraw and maintain enough confidence for it not to turn into a rout.

Skipping over the role of the Principes in the traditional triple-axis Roman formation (they're like Hastati but better equipped and therefore more crunchy in a grind) the Triariaii are the last line, when they need to be deployed shit has gotten real. They are intended to resemble the hoplite infantry tradition of earliest Rome, where grinding attrition warfare is the name of the game and being heavier and less mobile is not a weakness but a strength. They are the rock that the foe will break upon.

Cataphracts would be terrifying to face in combat during the period they were dominant in because they are single unit combined arms powerhouse. Recurve bow, heavy armor, high mobility, strong charge. If this were a video game they'd be stupidly broken. I think what would make a cataphract unit more dangerous than the similarly shooty conventional horse archers is that both the cataphract riders and their targets for destruction can see how well protected the cataphracts are, which must be a bit of a clusterfuck for the morale of the dudes who are about to get charged and while waiting for the inevitable are getting pelted with arrows. meanwhile in comparison friendly counterfire is ineffective.

TL;DR I think that how well armored you are plays a surprising amount into battlefield psychology during the periods where armor was able to keep up with firepower; on one end being equipped as light infantry makes the idea of tactical withdrawal much more palatable and on the other, being equipped as a cataphract makes the idea of a frontal charge much more palatable.

Also, the Pike & Shot era should have been a forewarning of advances in firepower because lots of people in the wars of that time had plate armor but guns and polearm canopeners were able to become wildly dominant over armor to the point that armor only became relevant again when someone invented armored fighting vehicles. Incidentally, the Modern Battle Tank is basically the modern equivalent of a cataphract

 

[Judge Holden]

grug club no go through shiny hard pelt of angry tribe
grug stone arrow bounce off shiny hard pelt
grug now scared of angry tribe
grug give angry tribe mammoth meat and daughter
grug go to longnose tribe and give berry for shiny hard pelt

 

[mindlessobserver]

Armour is a tool, and is evidence not of a mans lack of courage, but his superior intellectual, economic, and political position. A man with armor is smarter because smart men designed the armor. He is wealthier (and money is the sinew of war) because he can pay for the armor. And he has a strong political position because the leaders who have sent him to potentially die value his life enough to go the extra mile to see too it that he has some protection.

lets now look at the classical example. Sparta vs. Persia

On the left we have Spartans. Citizen soldiers. All are sheathed in bronze armor, with a bronze shield and spear. This is the ancient world equivalent to a tank. That armor is hideously expensive, and a huge portion of the cities GDP was applied to insure its citizens were given that armor. In Athens, ownership of armor was a requirement to have the franchise. In both situations however the Armor was proof of commitment to the state, and also by the state. You had the armor so you could serve, and the state mandated you had the armor before you could serve so you would not die needlessly. Consider the Persians to the right. Shields made of wicker straw and no armor. to say that both the Greeks defeated them would be an understatement. The Greeks crushed them.

A State that issues armor to its troops is not showing weakness, its showing unsurpassed strength. It shows that the lives of its men have value. This effort in turn gets reciprocated on the battlefield. The men feel that their society values their lives, so they are more willing to risk them.

 

[Y2K Baby]

Beserkers from Scotland used their bare naked dicks as their intimidating "armour" It was metal af.

 

[Zaragoza]

Consider the Persians to the right. Shields made of wicker straw and no armor. to say that both the Greeks defeated them would be an understatement. The Greeks crushed them.

I know your statement was directed at that picture and just that but I wanted to correct you on something about that "shields made of wicker straw and no armor" comment, the Persian military had armor too, they wore cuirasses made of iron scales, and Persian cavalry wore an even more comprehensive armor system, for example according to a Greek source by Herodotus, at least one Persian was so encased in gilded scales that the Greeks who found him thrown on the ground thanks to his horse couldn't find a way to kill him. Also Greek shields were mostly made out of wood with thin bronze covering.

Also the Greeks who "crushed" the Persians at the battle of Marathon from Thermopylae was an expeditionary force, not the entire Persian military, same expedition whose goal was to raze Athens and Eretria, which they did. and it was the Persians who were the ones who inflicted greater damage to the Spartans. Historically speaking, most of the fighting was based around archery to provoke either side on doing ill-advised attacks and it was the Persians who proved to be the superior force with their archery skills and sound tactical maneuver against Spartan brute force on Thermopylae, they didn't lose that many men and didn't lose an entire force and a king unlike the Spartans.

 

[DangerousGas]

Beserkers from Scotland used their bare naked dicks as their intimidating "armour" It was metal af.

And yet Scotland still received regular kicking from even the most inferior English Kings.

 

[not william stenchever]

Historically speaking, most of the fighting was based around archery to provoke either side on doing ill-advised attacks and it was the Persians who proved to be the superior force with their archery skills and sound tactical maneuver against Spartan brute force on Thermopylae, they didn't lose that many men and didn't lose an entire force and a king unlike the Spartans.

It makes sense then that during Alexander's conquests he made extensive use of Persian archers. Archery was definitely something they had down more than most Greeks, Crete being an exception. Speaking of Cretan Archers, the other famous ranged mercenaries in the Mediterranean were the slingers from the Balearic Islands. What the hell is it with Mediterranean islands and famous mercenaries specializing in one ranged weapon?

 

[mindlessobserver]

It makes sense then that during Alexander's conquests he made extensive use of Persian archers. Archery was definitely something they had down more than most Greeks, Crete being an exception. Speaking of Cretan Archers, the other famous ranged mercenaries in the Mediterranean were the slingers from the Balearic Islands. What the hell is it with Mediterranean islands and famous mercenaries specializing in one ranged weapon?

Probably had something to do with Piracy. Much easier to take the fuckers out before they got to land. I am just guessing though.

 

[not william stenchever]

With the large amounts of skirmishing troops that were given small shields in early history I have to wonder how often you can use the shield to block incoming projectiles. I imagine the fact that later peltast javelineers in the greek world started using medium weight armor and celt-iberian style shields like the did romans suggests that the light shields were used to keep its user alive just a bit longer, even though they will likely fall in the battle.

 

[millais]

Probably fancy, well maintained armor gave those groups that could afford it a sense of esprit de corps that was its own morale booster on campaign.

 

[Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost]

The psychological effects were meant to embolden and also demoralize in terms on ones opponents.
On the end of the wearing, the best armor available meant less chances of dying in combat, and as the weaponry from the periods evolved so did the armor to reflect this.

Those in the highest positions of society would be the better armored and often better trained for fighting, in terms of the Roman world you had the noble families that would have had combative duty as part of their social expectations, and so were usually better armed, trained, and mounted which meant that they could carry the extra weight of extra armor with less fatigue. This carried on into the medieval periods and beyond, where the natural elite of the society would often occupy these heavy combative positions.

The demoralizing effect is also tied to this, as your average levy or soldier ill equipped to face down heavily armed cavalry or footmen would be not only fighting against a better armed and trained opponent, but also be able to take less in the terms of physical damage afforded to those with better armor.

One example of the height of medieval armor production, the Milanese perfected a method that essentially made the wearer arrow proof even from longbows or crossbow quarrels. It never received widespread usage outside of the Condotteiri and small Italian principalities. But it was enough that even disciplined feudal knights and men at arms would disperse or route when they were fighting against these groups.

As the introduction of firearms reached it zenith, you saw a change again in terms of European armor wearing that evolved to meet the requirements of the time, the initial development of arquebuses meant that while armor was less relevant it still had its place as protective wear on the battlefield.
As the firearms became better, the soldiers wore less armor sacrificing protection for mobility, to the point where it was only used in the conquests of the new world and foreign lands, or produced rather ornately for symbolic purposes.

 

[Vlad the Inhaler]

This applies primarily to modernity, but here goes...

I wouldn't know from actual combat experience, but I am confident the effects are negligible. You still have to override your very real reluctance to expose yourself to enemy weapons, I doubt armor could cut that fear by much. Given that the greater risks in modern combat are predominately from heavy weapons, your body armor will probably do a good job stopping fragments and protect you from a decent portion of the <10% of injuries inflicted by light small arms. Modern helmets are pretty tits in protecting from fragments as well as some other nasty head injuries. The guy with the armor and they guy without are going to be shovelling just as furiously under a barrage.

In the classical world armor was better protection from individual weapons, but even greater comfort would come from fighting in tight formations. It's human nature in combat to stick to each other for comfort, and that, plus the adrenaline jolt from melee would probably make any sense of comfort the armor may provide superfluous.

Then there's the trade-off. Heavy armor and helmets can wreck you in high heat. Look at Guy's knights at Hattin for a textbook example of letting the environment erode your enemy's combat effectiveness for you. Just one mile with weapons and light loads in high heat/humidity is brutally fatiguing. In Vietnam, soldiers only wore flak jackets if strictly ordered to do so, and many who could jettisoned steel helmets for soft "boonie" hats. When you have to move in that kind of environment, you look for *anything* you can lose to lighten your load. You get so run down you just don't give a fuck anymore. The possible advantages from armor just don't outweigh the exhaustion from carrying them.

You know what traditionally has increased combat effectiveness? Pure fucking intoxication. From wine in the ancient world to opium to methamphetamines. All sides experimented with amphetamines during W-W-deuce, and all showed a marked increase in willingness to take risks. The problem was, it was a rapidly decaying curve after optimal dosages, becoming catastrophic with prolonged use. The Germans tried mid-war to cold turkey their troops from their version, known as Pervatin. Once they realized their men would collapse from exhaustion without them, they drowned them in it. With predictable results. Between armor and drugs, I'd vote drugs.

So, would I use armor today? If I was law enforcement, absolutely. Vests for LEOs are pretty damned good, and only mildly impede movement. If I was in combat and the primary threats are from mortars, mines, grenades and booby traps, sure, they offer good protection there. Anything else, probably, depends on the threat and as long as it doesn't become a liability otherwise. Hope this has helped.