View Full Version : legionary armor
a_ver_est
08-22-2003, 12:24
Hi all,
In the vids roman legionary wears "lorica segmentata" armour but ( I think ) it was introduced after Augustus dead, the end condition of the game.
Before they wear a "mesh armour" ( not know in english sorry )
Can anyone confirm that ?
Regards.
( sorry my lame english ) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
Sjakihata
08-22-2003, 12:50
mesh armour, do you mean chainmail ?
Well, that is the most plausible...
Catiline
08-22-2003, 14:33
In fact there seems to be some evidence for lorica seg before the death of Augustus but not by much, there are fragments of hte stuff from the likely site of the Varus disaster in AD 9
el_slapper
08-22-2003, 15:11
That one looks cooler, and, more important, is associated to Roman legions in the spirit of most non-expert. While chainmail looks "medieval". So, I guess, the choice.
As long as the gameplay is good, I don't care. Especially if it sells more, the expansion could be published in France, this time, grrrrrrrrrrrrr http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
DrHaphazard
08-22-2003, 16:04
Yeah this is another thing that has annoyed me, as you are right that the segmentata is not widely used until later. Again i lament that CA has chosen the Hollywood style of history.
This is an asthetics thing however, and i am hoping that it will be the gameplay and not the graphics, however cool they may be, that will make RTW one of the best games ever.
Oh by the way a_ver_est, in English that more historically accurate type of "mesh" armor is known as chain mail or ring mail.
for people like him they put lorica segmentata in the game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif mesh, pff
Hurin_Rules
08-22-2003, 18:52
The term 'chainmail' is actually redundant.
Either 'chain' or 'mail' armor is acceptable. They both mean the same thing.
By the way, didn't the Roman Auxilia (auxiliary legions, generally recruited from provincials) still use chain to the very end of the Imperial period?
I am sure hoping that the RTW expansion is the barbarian invasions. It would be great to have the timeline jump forward so you could play the various Germanic tribes and others like the Huns, Sarmatians, etc. I'd love to conquer Rome as Attila http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
war_blah
08-22-2003, 19:19
Roman Army Pictures (http://www.roman-empire.net/army/army-pictures.html)
Legions are famous for their banded armour.
What is the story about chainmail vs segmented armour? Which offers better protection and why did they change?
From the temporal ordering, one might assume the segmented was better but yet in medieval times, chainmail was much more common.
Sir Robin
08-22-2003, 19:40
If I recall correctly segmented or banded armor offered more protection. Apparently it was also more difficult to make.
I think the "chain" armor of earlier legions was actually fastened to leather jerkins. So "banded" armor might have actually been lighter overall.
It may also be that the techniques in producing "chain" armor had improved to where it offered more protection than "banded" armor.
Difficult to positively answer one way or the other. I think that historians are divided on which one was better and why it fell out of favor.
Catiline
08-22-2003, 19:41
I think lorica seg is supposed to have been easier/cheaper to mass produce
Hurin_Rules
08-22-2003, 20:32
That was the way I understood it-- segmentata was cheaper to mass produce. Chain takes a lot longer to make, but I have heard that chain has more 'give' and is a bit easier to maneuver in.
frogbeastegg
08-22-2003, 21:35
Lesse now, Roman armour is one of my favourite topics Please forgive any stupid errors in this, I've got a headache which doesn't exactly aid my memory http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
The segmented armour (also called lorica segmentata, laminated armour, plate armour) was quicker to produce, about 60 man hours, as well as cheaper. Plate was also easier to maintain for the legionary wearing it. A quick polish with a soft cloth takes care of most of the cleaning on plate, whereas chain mail requires more drastic methods like the famous rolling in barrels of sand. Weight wise mail was about 15lbs and plate was about 5lbs, so plate was obviously better. In terms of comfort however either armour relied on a good fit, in fact chain mail could be more comfortable as it shaped to the wearer’s body. Plate armour rubbed badly if it didn't fit, some re-enactors have been badly hurt by ill-fitting armour. Also on the subject of comfort I'm told that plate armour is hotter than chain mail, especially when the wearer is exercising. Both kinds of armour would require padding beneath them to get the maximum possible protection and comfort, after all there is no point in taking the sharpness out of an incoming blow if the force gets through as you would end up with broken bones and internal injuries even though the blade didn't cut.
As far as protection went both armours had their advantages. Plate armour was slightly more effective against most ancient weapons but it covered a smaller area leaving the groin and upper thighs vulnerable. Chain mail varied in length but it always seems to have been up to thigh length, therefore covering much more of the body. In terms of standing up to combat damage chain mail probably fared a little better as it did not have as many vulnerable joints and thong fastenings (think along the line of shoe laces, not underwear ) which could become broken or strained. However there was no real danger of lorica segmentata falling to pieces in battle as most of the fastenings were on the torso where they would be protected by the soldier's shield. In terms of after action repairs both armours would be about equal. Fixing up a few new links of chain mail is probably as easy as adding a new hinge or two. Replacing the leather thongs that fastened the armour would be as easy as replacing shoelaces today and the straps of leather inside the armour would also be easy to replace if there was access to a skilled blacksmith.
On ease of use chain mail slightly edges it. Segmented armour requires a second person to help you on with the armour (well it is possible to put it on like a jacket but you place the hinges and fastenings under enormous strain and risk breaking them). Chain mail is easier to put on with help but shorter shirts like the Romans used can be put on without aid as long as the wearer is practised. Chain mail doesn't need any time consuming fastening once it's on, a simple belt will take the weight off the shoulders and keep the armour from flapping about. Lorica segmentata requires several minutes of fastening before it is ready. The same applies in reverse for taking the armour off, chain mail is faster and can be taken off without aid.
On looks the lorica segmentata wins, this is not as trivial as it may sound. The Romans were the rulers of a massive and powerful empire and they wanted their soldiers to look impressive and terrifying as it helped keep the locals in line as well as increasing awe of the all conquering Roman army. Segmented armour is easier to keep bright and shiny and it is distinctive, many contemporary cultures used chain mail but plate armour is much rarer. Segmented armour also looks more advanced; it sends a message about Rome's technological achievements in metalworking, design and military technology.
Of course this is all a generalisation as lamellar armour underwent many design changes and several styles are know of (Corbridge A, Corbridge B, Newstead) each with different numbers of plates, fastenings and general design differences. Each style has it's own strengths and weaknesses, for example Corbridge B is much simpler in design than Corbridge A. Chain mail also had numerous designs, each with different strengths and weaknesses (the whole daggered edge debate, longer shirts, shorter shirts, shoulder doublings, integral sleeves etc). Both varieties of armour co-existed for decades and the surviving Roman sources don't favour one kind above all so it seems that neither armour was vastly superior to the other.
In recent years the theory that auxiliaries wore chain mail and the legionaries wore lorica segmentata has been nixed. Fragments of plate were found in a auxiliary fort (I can't remember which one I think it was on Hadrian's Wall somewhere, this is a little embarrassing ) and there are several depictions of legionaries in chain mail after plate armour is known to have been introduced. Mail armour used to be interpreted as leather armour back before people realised that leather armour would have been impractical to the Romans (if it was strong enough to compete with chain mail and plate it would be too heavy and inflexible for their tastes and if it was light and flexible then it was weaker than the metal armour. The techniques used to produce good leather armour e.g. the buff coats used in the English Civil War were probably unavailable to the Romans, as it requires an extract from a sperm whale. Leather was probably used for the padding under the armour as well as the famous pteruges which accompanied many armours.), there are a few examples of this interpretation in the picture link war_blah provided, most notably the Emperor Hadrian wearing cheap leather armour, you'd think that the ruler of the civilised world would be able to afford something better - he should get a pay rise OK, that was slightly mean (to the re-enactor, the comment wasn't aimed at war_blah) and the rest of those pictures were quite good it's just that picture struck me as funny.
What worries me in RTW is not the early (debateable as our evidence is not complete) appearance of lorica segmentata it's the horsemen wearing it. Roman plate armour is supposed to be rather uncomfortable to wear on horse back as it rattles around on the shoulders and upper arms when the horse is moving moderately quickly. I admit that this is based on hearsay so I may be wrong; I haven't tried it personally for several reasons:
1)I don't know how to ride a horse.
2)I don't have any armour.
3)They don't make this armour Boudicca style
The RTW horsemen are also using the curved scutum that was created for infantry, the curve and the weight make it very hard to use on horseback (again this difficulty is a mixture of hearsay and common sense). Cavalry generally used oval or circular shields that were flat and lighter in construction (the legionary scutum is about 6-10lbs in weight).
You have been reading frogbeastegg's history lecture. There is a certificate available for those able to answer a 20 question test on the subject covered in this essay. The test will follow tomorrow http://smilies.crowd9.com/contrib/sally/lol.gif
Hurin_Rules
08-22-2003, 22:10
Great post Frog.
One question: if the legion-lorica/auxiliary-chain theory has been nixed, what is the current idea? That lorica and chain were interchangeable? That legionaires could use chain and auxiliaries lorica without any real pattern?
http://www.totalwars.net/forum/images/smiles/893applaud-thumb.gif
Very nice post Froggy. Specially useful for those less educated in the history of Rome, like me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
"after all there is no point in taking the sharpness out of an incoming blow if the force gets through as you would end up with broken bones and internal injuries even though the blade didn't cut."
Just had a small comment on this. it is not realted but I thought I'll share it anyway. I think this statement highlights some of the differences in swordsmanship. In Japanese Kenjustu (swordsmanship), for example, the kenshi (swordsman) would generally be considered all the more skilled, the lighter his hand, and the more deep his cut would be. As a student of Kendo, this sort of sprung out at me. I guess the Romans used heavier slash and thrust technique.
Thanks for the post. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Catiline
08-22-2003, 22:24
It seems among other things that lorica seg wsa more popular in the western empire, in the East Chain and Scale armour remained in use to a far greater level among the legions.
As to keeping it clean there's some evidence that Roamsn may have tinned it, which would have had some of the effect of galvanisation, and regular wear goes some way to avoiding rust anyhow.
Catiline
08-22-2003, 22:30
read htis htread at RAT. Mike Bishop, is big king lorica seg, and Dan Peterson is the founder of one of Europes oldest and 'best' reenactment groups for the Roman legion. sander van Dorst is also well worth listening to. the rest of the posters are of varying quality, but for an online discussion of lorica seg v Hamata you won't find better...
http://pub45.ezboard.com/fromana....2.topic (http://pub45.ezboard.com/fromanarmytalkfrm1.showMessage?topicID=402.topic)
DrHaphazard
08-22-2003, 22:47
Frog makes an excellent point when talking about the appearance of plate armor versus chain. It certainly does look more impressive even today.
Also i had never considered which type was easier to put on, another important point as i had forgotten about all the fastening need for segmented armor.
Quote[/b] (Catiline @ Aug. 22 2003,22:30)]http://pub45.ezboard.com/fromana....2.topic (http://pub45.ezboard.com/fromanarmytalkfrm1.showMessage?topicID=402.topic)
Thanks.
frogbeastegg
08-22-2003, 22:57
The current theory on legionary/auxiliary armour usage depends on who you talk to:
1)Those who refuse to change their theory despite the new evidence - This whole thing is just a large mistake, legionaries used segmented armour and axillaries used chain mail so there Not to mention the whole new fangled idea of chain mail for axillaries - back in my day they had leather armour, none of this fancy metal stuff, and they were grateful for it
2)Those who accept the new theory whole heartedly and believe in personal freedom in everything - Anyone used any armour, it was a matter of personal choice for the soldier. There were no supply problems with this approach because the Romans were anticipated the demand for amour.
3)Those who accept the new theory but still believe armour was related to the unit rather than the individual - Both kinds of armour were used by both types of soldier, however a unit would be equipped in a uniform style with no mixing of armour types.
4)Those who accept the new theory but believe distribution was down to chance - both types of soldier used both types of armour, the kind they ended up with depended on what was in the stores when they were recruited or needed new armour.
5)Those that accept the new theory and believe that armour was given out according to role - axillaries got lorica segmentata if they were acting as heavy infantry, otherwise they got chain.
6)Those that accept the new theory and believe that armour was related to climate - soldiers in hotter climates were given more chain mail than plate armour because it was cooler. Soldiers in colder areas got whatever was available with the emphasis on plate.
Personally I think it was a combination of location and availability (numbers 4 + 6).
Ack While I was replying to Hurin_Rules three more posts appeared
SeljukSinan - Yes, the Romans used stabbing blows wherever possible (at least the infantry did before they switched to the longer spatha, but that's a whole new essay) because it only took a wound 1 inch deep to put an enemy out of the fight with a large chance of death by infection after the battle. Stabbing also allowed the Romans to stay in a tighter formation and keep themselves better covered with their shields. The Roman gladius was a versatile weapon though, it has been demonstrated that it can hack a limb off very easily as well as behead a man in a single stroke. Most of the weapons encountered by the Romans at this time worked on the principle of slamming a sharp edge into the target with significant force, blunt weapons and a more gentle style of swordsmanship were generally unknown. The metal of the armour stopped, or limited, the damage the cutting edge did and the padding beneath the armour stopped percussive damage from breaking bones and damaging internal organs. The armour and the padding worked together well; if they were separated then they became much less effective, possibly to the point of becoming a liability rather than a help. In fact swordsmanship wasn't really an art for most warriors in this period (there are exceptions of course) it was more a practical thing to learn in the same way cutting vegetables is practical. The theory was 'kill the other guy without getting hurt' and the art form was 'do it fast without poncing about', whereas later in Europe and in Japan etc sword fighting was an art form which took many years to learn and was intended to be graceful and tied into philosophy rather than just efficient killing, although it could do that too
Catiline - Yes, the scale/plate divide is quite well proven, in fact it ties into point 6 in the theory list above. I shall take a look at that link.
I've always loved this kind of thing (military history and debates on how effective weapons and armour were) and the Romans are the highlight of the lot, closely followed by Medieval equipment, then Classical Greek and finally Japanese Samurai bits and pieces. People are always so surprised that a girl likes this kind of thing; I suppose they think I should be studying the history of sewing or something dull like that
Sir Robin
08-22-2003, 23:45
That does bring up a point about the way the models fight.
They don't seem to use the prefered roman-style of thrusting strikes. In the movies they seem to be only swinging their swords from side to side.
I wonder if the finished RTW will include the thrusting attack for swords and not just spears.
I'd also like to see more emphasis on formations like the "repel cavalry" rather than have lumps of infantry milling around with swords when faced with cavalry.
And I had always thought that the square shield was used by the legionares throughout there history, but apparently was only used for a short period of time accordind to that link
Red Peasant
08-23-2003, 06:10
Quote[/b] (frogbeastegg @ Aug. 22 2003,21:57)]it has been demonstrated that it can hack a limb off very easily as well as behead a man in a single stroke.
I've heard this as well, and don't doubt it, but it made me chuckle thinking about testing it out.
'Volunteers for beheading? Please, step this way. Those for limb hacking off, please wait a second.' http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] (a_ver_est @ Aug. 22 2003,06:24)]Hi all,
Before they wear a "mesh armour" ( not know in english sorry )
Actually, the English word mail is a bastardization of the old French word maille, which means mesh, so you're not too far off. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
frogbeastegg
08-23-2003, 09:59
I forgot to include the effects of quality on the maintenance of the armour. As Catiline said there is evidence that chain mail was tinned (there is also evidence for varnish) to protect it and make it easier to clean. The quality of the iron also had an impact on the armour as poor quality iron would rust much easier and require more cleaning. Rubbish iron would also be more prone to breakages. Also we do not know how clean the Romans kept their equipment on campaign, it is possible that mail was allowed to get slightly rusty as it would not significantly affect it's performance, unlike plate which relies on smooth surfaces to work properly. If the Romans were allowed slightly dirty equipment than the guy with chain mail had the edge.
The Roman swords were tested on various animal carcasses got from butchers. One I saw had a whole pig, which was cut up quite quickly with a gladius before being bunged on a barbeque
The Romans used many different kinds of shields as heavy infantry, light infantry, officers, cavalry etc all had different kinds of shields tailored to their roles. I can do a Frogbeastegg History Lecture (Trade Marked) on shields if anyone’s interested, I don't want to go off topic if it's not needed.
The Roman style of fighting during the late republic/early empire has been compared to a buzz saw; the quote is something like "If the Greek phalanx was a pincushion then the Roman maniple was a buzz saw". I can't remember who said that, it was one of these TV historians that try to be trendy except this one actually knew what he was on about for a change
Now I'll go and look at that site Catiline posted, when I tried last night we had a power cut just as I clicked the link, Bah
Hakonarson
08-23-2003, 11:28
There are apparenly accounts of prisoners behing beheaded with single strokes of a gladius.
Roman armour was never really standardised - there were literally hundreds of armouries producing the stuff across the republic/empire, and there's evidence that individual soldiers wore whatever they wanted.
Lorica Segmentata can't have been all that great, because mail remained in constant use throughout the Empire, while LS fell out of use and scal became popular.
Catiline
08-23-2003, 12:11
Besides, of all of them tinned scale definitely looks hte coolest http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
The ideal way of someone was probably the upwards thrust into the groin/lower torso. The problem is that to acheive that you need a fairly compliant opponent for that to work everytime, who'll stand still with their body open. So you have to be able to fight with a galdius, and either make the opportunity to deliver that stab, or else take the opportunity to have a hack.
As RP all htese tests are nonsense anyway, you can't acutally chop necks, and any tests on joints of meat etc don't exactly recreate stressful adrenaline fuelled battle situations.
Ok,I have a personal oppinion here, it has absolutely no basis in anything I have read anywhere.
But as time went on armour got better (duh) and better produced. And naturally people began to improve existing armour, sometime it became crap other times it became good.
Such as the chain mail (the reason for the double notation is because of plate mail and the need to destinguish them), as it started out for the Romans and the Greeks as pretty much the earler linen armour, where it was strapped down over the shoulder and was fastened to leather or linnen (thus the reason for this strapping), besides it looked rather ugly. Obviously that kind of armour is as constricting and unpleasant to wear as the lorica segmantata. The move to that armour was obvious for its benefits since the chain mail of the time didn't offer much that could demand its usage.
But as time went on the stiff cuirass under the chain mail was removed and it got formfitted with some padded arour underneath. This in turn provided a much superior armour to the earlier chain mail, not much better in protection, if at all, but vastly more comfortable and easier to use and clean (can you imagine cleaning the earlier chain mail?).
Thus now troops began to wear either the chain mail and the segmentata in about equal numbers.
As time went on discipline fell and (as frog has discussed) the troops might not have been required to do as much personal cleaning, making chain mail superior in maintainance and efficiency.
Lastly at this time advances in the process of connecting the rings might have been made. The rings began to be no longer riveted but punched (much stronger), and possibly the adoption of 6-ring and perhaps 8-ring mail which were very much superior to the old 4-ring mail (also called light mail), though much heavier.
Another thing that might of use in this, is the fact the Septimus Severus' reign is the last we know of that for sure had lorica segmentata to some extent. And since he took over from a very turbulent time, it is possible that the knowlegde of the construction was simply lost. Of course not fully, but enough to make chain mail more useful as the now produced segmentatas were comparably not efficient enough.
Hakonarson
08-23-2003, 23:10
So what's plate mail hten? Appart from an armour class in D&D that is.....
BTW there's no evidence that "discipline fel" in hte Roman army in any significant way over time - there were certainly times and places when individual units were less disciplined than otherwise, but Roman legions were generally always well trained and disciplined even when made up largely of "barbarians" in hte late 4th and 5th centuries CE.
As far as I have understood, plate mail is the combination of plates and chain. Such as if the guy had a breastplate and chain on the arms and down the legs.
Parmenio
08-24-2003, 19:22
Quote[/b] ]I can do a Frogbeastegg History Lecture (Trade Marked) on shields if anyone’s interested...
Yes please, I'm interested.
Hakonarson
08-24-2003, 23:16
Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Aug. 24 2003,05:52)]As far as I have understood, plate mail is the combination of plates and chain. Such as if the guy had a breastplate and chain on the arms and down the legs.
Sp partial plate and partial mail then - sepending upon which area got strick - gosh - there were some Roman legionaries who wore that too........
Interesting reading.
I've tried to dig up what I can on the equipment of the Late Roman era(quite frustrating actually) and oddly enough the segmentata seems to have all but disappeared by then. The only types that appear to be in large scale use were the hamata(mail), squamata(scale) and lamellar(lamellar:) ). Iron mail and bronze scale seem to have been most common types. Makes me think the segmentata must have had some drawbacks, even if economic, that outweighed any any advantage gained.
As to which type of armor was used in the Imperial period I'm more inclined to go with mail being the dominant type. The theory that the sculptors Rome used segmentata because its visually striking makes sense when you compare to the monuments done by the soldiers themselves which generally show mail.
Praetorian
08-25-2003, 08:47
Also, normal footsoldier legionnairs, only wore horsehair on their helmets in Parades, NOT on the battlefield.
1 Typical Roman chain-mail made of iron rings [shown right actual size] Alternate rows are riveted.
2 Roman bronze scale armour [shown right actual size]. The scales were wired to each other and then sewn on to a cloth backing.
3 The type of armour worn by legionaries in the west. It is uncertain whether this type [lorica segmentata] was used in the east. 4 a bronze helmet found in the river po near cremona in Italy. This may have been lost by one of the eastern legionaries when Vitellius was defeated.
http://www.geocities.com/re_kts3/legionary_armour.jpg
4 Right. http://www.geocities.com/re_kts3/legionary.jpg
A reconstruction of an eastern legionary of the second half of the 1st century AD. He wears a tinned bronze helmet and a mail shirt. He is armed with a heavy javelin, sword and dagger. His shield is made of wood covered with hide and has a metal boss. Legionaries were armed with heavy javelins [pila] and short thrusting swords. Legions were composed of foot soldiers holding Roman citizenship. They were professionals who had signed on for at least 25 years. A legion consisted of 10 cohorts divided into 6 centuries of 100 men each. Each century was commanded by a centurion. About 120 cavalry were attached to each legion, making a total of 5-6,000 men.
The illustration on the right shows an eastern legionary waering the armour and items described above. The pictures are all by Peter Connolly, the noted military historian and illustrator. The legionary is shown with a typical Roman sword and scabbard of the later 1st century AD. The blade was about 50cm long. This was primarily used for thrusting and not for cutting.
The Legion's Equipment
The equipment to the legionaries was remarkably uniform throughout the empire and it is possible that there were large centres in Gaul and North Italy for the mass manufacture of helmets, armour and weapons as well as the kettles and mess tins, etc.
One can detect changes in the style at different periods and there seems to have been a tendency in the first two centuries gradually to simply and reduce any over elaboration. In the middle of the first century for example the buckles, belt plates and apron terminals were not only silvered and occasionally even gilded, but also decorated with black inlays. By the end of the first century this practice had ceased.
The soldiers wore linen undergarments next to the skin and over it a short-sleeved woolen tunic which came down to the knees.
Although the Romans had originally considered the wearing of trousers (bracae) a foreign and effeminate habit, legionaries in cold climates were allowed to wear trousers made of of wool or leather which were skin tight and reached just below the knee.
On their feet they wore the elaborate military boot. In fact they were heavy sandals with several thicknesses of sole studded with hollow-headed hobnails. The leather thongs were continued half way op the shin and tied there, and in cold weather could be stuffed with wool or fur.
The type of body armour varied through the times. Under Caesar and in the early first century, legionaries wore chain mail, but by Claudius had a complex suit of six or seven horizontal overlapping strips attached on the inside by leather strips to allow freedom of movement, the lorica segmentata. (The expression 'lorica segmentata' is an expression created by scholars to describe the armour, rather than being the term necessarily used by the Romans themselves.)
The shoulders were covered with sets of curved strips and there were also pairs of front and back plates. the armour could be taken apart, or quickly put on as a complete unit and laced up at the front.
On the column of Marcus Aurelius another variation of lorica segmentata is visible, being without any chest and back plate, the strips far more reaching all the way up to the neck. Also on Marcus Aurelius' column appear soldier in scale armour, which appeared to thereafter slowly emerge as the new form of legionary protection.
Although all three types of armour appear still to have been used during the reign of Constantine the Great.
It appears that the first to wear scale armour were the imperial guard, the praetorians. The legionaries followed suit at a later date.
Around the neck the legionary wore a scarf to protect the metal plates from chafing the skin. The legionary had a wide belt, studded with decorated metal plates, which carried dagger to one side and an apron at the front. The apron consisted of a number of leather thongs to which were riveted metal plates, and weighted with bronze terminals. It swung between the legs on the march and was most likely merely decorative though some believe it might also have given at least some limited protection to the lower stomach and the genitals.
For the protection of the head there was a carefully designed bronze helmet, which had inside an iron skull cap. At the back a projecting piece shielded the neck and a smaller ridge fastened at the front face protection to the face. At the sides were large cheek pieces hinged at the top.
The men's' legs were bare, protection being sacrificed for mobility. Each man carried a large shield, the scutum, which was curved to fit the body. They were made from a kind of plywood, thin sheets of wood, glued together so that the grain of each piece was at right angles to its neighbour. The whole was bound around the edges with wrought iron or bronze and the centre was hollowed out on the inside for the for the hand grip and protected by a metal boss. On the outside the surface was covered in leather, on which was fastened gilded or silvered decoration, probably in bronze. The decorations on legionaries' shields represented Jupiter's thunderbolts.
Each cohort had its shields coloured differently to aid recognition in the confusion of battle. the shields also carried the name of the soldier and that of his centurion. On the march the shield was hung by a strap over the left shoulder.
For taking the offensive the legionaries possessed two kinds of weapons.
The pilum, or javelin, was primarily a disarming weapon.
Julius Caesar clearly described its function: "The Gauls were much hampered in action because a single spear often pierced more than one of their overlapping shields and pinned them together, and, as the iron bent, they could not pull it out. With their left arms thus encumbered it was impossible for them to fight properly, and many, after repeated attempts to pull their shields free, preferred to drop the shields altogether and fight unprotected."
The pilum of imperial times was seven feet long. The top three feet were of iron with a hardened point.
It is probable that more sturdy types of spear or pike were available for defence against cavalry.
The legionary sword, the gladius, was a double-bladed weapon two feet long and two inches wide, often with a corrugated bone grip. Its primary use was for thrusting at short range. It was carried high on the right hand side so as to be clear of the legs and the shield arm.
On the left hand side, attached to the belt, was a dagger, the pugio.
Apart from his weapons each man, carried a saw, a wicker basket for shifting earth, a piece of rope or leather, a sickle and a pickaxe.
The pickaxe was carried on the belt, its sharp edge in a bronze sheath, but the other items were carried on a forked pole, the pila muralia, which was invented by Marius, and the marching soldier would carry across his shoulder.
In the later years of the empire some of this burden was occasionally born by a wagon train accompanying the troops.
The heaviest and most bulky piece of equipment was the leather tent papilio. This was carried by mule, together with a pair of millstones for grinding the corn ration.
The Centurion's and Staff Officers' Equipment
This officer was distinguished from the men by his uniform. He wore a corselet of leather, mail or scales with metal shoulder pieces and a beautifully ornamented belt. Below his corselet was a double-pleated kilt-like garment and on his shins he ware thin metal greaves. Unlike the legionary he carried his sword in the orthodox position on the left swinging from a baldric From his left shoulder a cloak, made of fine material, hung in elegant folds. In his right hand he carried his emblem of office the twisted vine stick vitis.
Generally a centurion would be a very ornate and decorated figure, establishing his higher rank from that of the ordinary men.
The legate and his staff officers were distinguished by their fine cloaks, dyed according to rank. They had their own, individual armour and uniform which was suited to their personal tastes.
http://rubens.anu.edu.au/student.projects97/armour/scale/scimage/SCanimated.GIF
cale (Lorica Squamata) c.late
3rd century B.C., assembled from
scales found near Lake Trasimene. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto,
934.6 (Robinson 1975: 153).
another type of cuirass was the lorica squamata, also known as scaled or jezeraint armour. Scale armour is perhaps the oldest type of metal body armour. Peterson (1992: 42) proposed that its origins date to at least the 2nd millennium B.C., having a long history of use in Greece and the East. Despite its early origins it was used throughout the entire period of Roman dominance. Scale armour is usually depicted with short sleeves, and the lower edges reaching the upper thighs, as in the sculpture of Q. Sertorius Festus on a grave stela. Alternately, the marble relief in the Palazzo Ducale, Mantua, shows a lorica squamata, worn by a 1st century legionary. This is sleeveless with broad reinforcing shoulder-straps that fit together from throat to breast-bone. The straps have cut-away outer corners and are edged with leather piping, as is the neck of the garment (Robinson 1975: 157).
Scale armour was made from both iron and bronze. The manufacture of scale armour involved small sections of metal sheeting of varying sizes being attached by wires or riveted to their neighbours and sewn onto a suitably flexible foundation of hide or strong cloth. Early scale armour was commonly joined by small twisted links of bronze wiring, positioned in horizontal rows, overlapping upwards and imbricated like scales of a fish or in the manner of roof tiles . The size of these scales range from small bronze specimens of 2.8 cm by 1.4 cm to iron ones 8 cm by 5.4 cm . Scales commonly had rounded lower ends, though some are simply cut into sharp points or have a straight bottom edge and their corners cut off at an angle (Robinson 1975: 154). Evidence of parts of a bronze lorica squamata were found at the site of Corstopitum (Corbridge) in Northumberland England. These scales were very small, and due to the expense incurred in manufacturing such fine armour, Simkins (1994a: 15) proposes that the man, probably an officer, no doubt would have purchased this armour himself. A similar group of 346 scales which was found in the fort of Newstead (c.A.D. 98-100), of yellow bronze (perhaps a result of oxidization), are larger measuring 2.9 cm by 1.2 cm (Robinson 1975: 154).
http://rubens.anu.edu.au/student.projects97/armour/mail/maimage/MA1.JPG
mail was also known as lorica hamata by the Romans. It is generally accepted that the Romans acquired their knowledge of mail-making from the Celts, who were the original fabricators of this form of armour. Mail consists of metal rings, each one linked through four others, two in the row above it and two below (Robinson 1975: 164). The fine mail of the 1st century could be made from bronze or iron rings measuring, "...in some cases, as little as 3 mm in diameter" (Simkins 1994b: 18). Only fragments of mail exist in the archaeological record but the sculptured record indicates that there were many variations of lorica hamata. The best known example of a Gallo-Roman mail shirt surviving is the sculptured representation of a Gallic officer of auxiliaries in Roman service in the Musee Calvet at AvignonAlthough this sculpture dates from the late 1st century B.C., it shows a hip-length mail coat with long-sleeves. The large shoulder doubling straps with cut-aways at the outside corners are bound with what appears to be leather edging. Buttons or rivets secure the shoulder-straps to the front of the shirt (Robinson 1975: 164). Simkins (1994b: 18) suggests that auxilia of the 2nd century wore armour of much the same appearance as the preceding century's hauberks. These were variations of the lorica hamata with shirts consisting of short, or no sleeves, with or without shoulder doubling. In the latter case their place taken by short leather pteruges. The exception was the mail of cavalrymen who worn hip-length mail shirts with a short slit on either side to allow for horse riding (Bishop & Coulston 1993: 85). This feature is also depicted on the base of a column from the Praetorium at Mainz.
http://rubens.anu.edu.au/student.projects97/armour/muscle/muimage/MU1.JPG
one of the most widely recognized Roman lorica was the so called 'muscle' cuirass (thorax statios in Greek), probably Hellenistic in origin. This cuirass was molded on the contours of the muscles of the male chest which were reproduced in an idealized manner. Tarassuk and Blair (1982: 311) suggest that this type of cuirass was constructed from iron or bronze, consisting of a high-waisted or hip length breastplate. Shoulder straps hinged to the edges of the back plate, with their forward extremities tied down to rings on the breast. These plates had side fastenings with perhaps two hinges or a pair of rings joined by ties providing for the soldier's left and right flanks (Robinson 1975: 149). Muscle cuirasses have been frequently believed to have been made of leather. However, a molded leather cuirass would have to be very thick and rigid to have any defensive qualities (Robinson 1975: 147). Robinson (1975: 147) suggests that this cuirass type was probably worn almost exclusively by emperors and top-ranking military leaders as a symbol of Roman might and sovereignty. Tarassuk and Blair (1982: 311) propose that this form of cuirass was also adopted and worn by members of the Praetorian Guard for dress occasions as late as the middle of the 2nd century A.D. They base this proposition on the famous Praetorian relief in the Musee du Louvre, Paris and on the base of the column of Antoninus Pius, in the Vatican Museum, where a centurion is shown wearing such an item. This type of cuirass may have been used by Roman soldiers as late as the 4th-5th Centuries A.D. (Tarassuk & Blair 1982: 311). None of these metallic muscled cuirasses of the Roman period have survived in the archaeological record (Bishop & Coulston 1993: 85). However, Etruscan metal muscle cuirasses dating from 5th to the 3rd Century B.C. have been found (Robinson 1975: 147).
http://rubens.anu.edu.au/student.projects97/armour/segmented/seimage/SEanimated.GIF
econstruction of a
lorica segmentata
of Corbridge type 'B'
(Robinson 1975: 180-181).
the form of cuirass for which the 1st century is best known is the lorica segmentata. The name was not invented by the Romans but came into use during the Renaissance. It was the first type of articulated laminated plate armour cuirass, the origins of which are unknown (Bishop & Coulston 1993: 194). The segmental cuirass may have found its way into the Roman army from the gladiatorial arena (Bishop and Coulston 1993: 85) . The first time the Romans came into contact with this armour may have been during the revolt of Florus and Sacrovir in (A.D.21). Heavily armoured gladiators, called crupellarii, fought against legionaries. Tacitus describes how armoured gladiators were killed by legionaries hacking through their segmented armour with pickaxes (Bishop & Coulston 1993: 85, see also Tacitus 1989: 139-141). It is highly probable, that this form of armour was being issued as standard legionary equipment by the time the Emperor Claudius' troops invaded Britain in A.D.43. An assortment of fittings from such armour have been found on sites occupied by the Romans during the first years of the invasion (Simkins 1994a: 16).
From archaeological excavations at, Corbridge, Newstead, and other sites, a number of variation of the segmented loricae have been identified. The earliest form known (Corbridge type 'A'http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif of this armour consisted of 40 plates. The collar and shoulder units consisted of 24 plates (lames) and there were 16 girdle plates" (Robinson 1975: 177). The latter were half semicircular iron lames, consisting of strips of iron sheet, and were positioned horizontally, riveted onto straps.
The lames were laced at the center of the breast and back in such a way as to encircle the trunk completely while still allowing the body considerable freedom of movement because of their [methods of] articulation (Tarassuk & Blair 1982: 312).
The articulation of the bands was kept in place by a complicated system of straps and buckles. Fastened on the inside by leather straps and fastened at the front and back with laces, buckles and straps (Bishop & Coulston 1989: 32). These fittings, which were usually made of thin brass (copper alloy) sheet, were vulnerable to damage and caused electrochemical corrosion at points of contact with the iron plate (Bishop & Coulston 1993: 191). The fragility of these components could explain why broken ones are often found at excavations (Bishop & Coulston 1993: 85). The defence was completed with two half-collars (shoulder guards) of articulated lames. Each collar consisted of a small breast-plate (3.3 cm by 8.6 cm wide at the lower end) which was fastened to other lames that formed a neck guard (Robinson 1975: 177). Both of the shoulder-guards consisted of five plates. The largest upper plates were made from three pieces joined to each other by lobate bronze hinges as were the collar units beneath (Robinson 1975: 177).
the lorica segmentata was superior to mail in both manufacturing and as armour. However, the armour's chief advantage was in its weight, around 12lb, depending upon the thickness of plates used (Simkins 1994a: 16). Plates were made by hammer work, and Bishop and Coulston (1993: 190) note that an analysis of surviving fragments of iron plates of the lorica segmentata type shows that they had not been hardened in any way, although the Romans are known to have been aware of this technique. They also suggest that Roman armourers deliberately produced 'soft' armour that could absorb the energy/force of a blow as it crumpled. This softness allowed the metal to deform extensively, absorbing the impact of weapons and denying them the resistance needed to penetrate effectively. Massey (1994: 38) cites evidence of contemporary arrowhead types used against this type of armour. On no occasion did arrowheads of any type tested afford lethal penetration (Massey 1994: 37). Shots directed at this type of armour either glanced off or gave minimal penetration (Massey 1994: 37). This effectiveness apparently due to a combination of the softness of the metal and the internal gap between the plates (Massey 1994: 38). Massey (1994: 38) also proposes that up until the introduction of lorica segmentata in Claudian times there was no armour form in widespread use which could guarantee the wearer's safety against arrow attack. This armour was also especially fortified in shoulder-defence (Bishop & Coulston 1993: 85). As such it may have normally been employed by particular legions, notably those fighting the Celts, whose style of fighting and use of weapons such as the long sword posed a particular threat to the head and shoulders of the line infantryman (Bishop & Coulston 1993: 209).
http://rubens.anu.edu.au/student.projects97/armour/segmented/seimage/SE4.JPG
Segmented plate armour had disadvantages as well. Most notable is the loss of protection to the thighs and upper arms. Simkins (1974: 16) states that during the Emperor Trajan's Dacian campaign, the Romans fought against adversaries armed with long scythe-like swords (falx). These were capable of reaching past the legionary's scutum (large curved shield) to injure the unprotected sword arm. This weapon may have also endangered the soldiers' legs which from Republican times were bare, protection here being compromised for the sake of mobility. However, the Adamklissi monument suggests that legionaries in these two campaigns may have augmented their protection with greaves and segmental armguards similar to those worn by gladiators (Bishop & Coulston 1989: 41).
The archaeological record provides rich evidence of this type of armour. Excavation has provided more evidence of this form of cuirass than both scale and mail (Bishop & Coulston 1989: 32). From excavations, three minor variations of segmented lorica have been identified, basically differing in the methods employed to attach the upper and lower sections (hooks verses buckles), the lacing, and in the number and size of the lames used (Peterson 1992: 39). The most important discovery was made in 1964, at the site of the Roman station of Corstopitum in Northumberland (Corbridge-on-Tyne) at Hadrian's Wall, when two complete sets of this type were found in a wooden chest buried below the floor of a timber building of the Flavian period fort. This is the only site where this type of armour has been found in a reasonably complete state, despite the fact that copper alloy buckles, hinges, hooks and loops of this armour are a common find on 1st century Roman military sites throughout Europe and the Golan Heights in Israel, indicating its widespread use (Peterson 1992: 39, see image SE5). The 'Corbridge Hoard', as it has been termed contains, among other items, bundles of badly oxidized iron loricae segmentatae wrapped in cloth (see image SE6). The involvement of Robinson, a practicing armourer, has led to a fully-functional reconstruction of these armour pieces (Bishop & Coulston 1993: 40). Ultimately this archaeological evidence is the only viable means of understanding what the segmental cuirass looked like. Two different patterns emerged of lorica segmentata of almost certainly from the 1st century, which are known as Corbridge types 'A' and 'B' respectively (Connelly 1982: 48). According to Robinson (1975: 177), the latter, has a slightly larger breast-plate and only seven, instead of eight, pairs of girdle lames. In type 'B' the buckles connecting the collar units with the girdle plates, replaced by hooks which pass through loops on the breast and back plates. Robinson (1975: 180) further argues that the increase of width of the breast plate (7.7 cm by 9.4 cm) of this pattern gave increased defensive coverage to the chest, although it was far from fitting satisfactorily at the sides and the front of the neck.
http://rubens.anu.edu.au/student.projects97/armour/segmented/seimage/SE5.JPG
orica segmentata fittings. 1: Breastplate (London); 2-7 lobate hinges (2 Carnuntum; 3 Chester; 4 Rheingonheim; 5 Hofheim; 6 Oberstimm; 7 Sheepen); 8-12 decorated washes (8 Silchester; 9 Rheingonheim; 10 Chichester; 11 Chester; 12 Longthorpe); 13-20 hinged buckes (13 Sheepen; 14 Chichester; 15 The Lunt; 16 Rheingonheim; 17 Aislingen; 18 Vindonissa; 19-20 Risstissen); 21-28 hinged strape fittings (21 Strasbourg; 22 Oberstimm; 23 Carnuntum; 24 Hod Hill; 25 Obsterstimm; 26 Broxtowe; 27 Rheingonheim; 28 Risstissen); 29-35 tie loops (29 Hod Hill; 30 Risstissen; 31 Hod Hill; 32 Rheingonheim; 33 Carnuntum; 34 The Lunt; 35 Coorbridge) (Bishop & Coulston 1993: 89).
third pattern of lorica segmentata has been identified and tentatively reconstructed from fragments found in the well in the headquarters building at Newstead near Melrose in Scotland. Simkins (1994a: 16) suggests that this pattern was probably developed in the later years of the 1st century and is the model for the majority of representations of legionary soldiers on Trajan's Column. This provides multiple simplified representations of this pattern with many different attempts to suggest fastenings and fittings. However, none of these representations stand up to critical examination and prove misleading for reconstructing this form of armour (Robinson 1975: 183). It is difficult to tell how long the earlier Corbridge 'A' and 'B' pattern lorica remained in use until it was eventually replaced by the Newstead type (Robinson 1975: 182). They may have continued for quite some time after the introduction of the Newstead type for two reasons:
first, like the replacement of mail by segemented armour types, re-equipping legions with new armour was expensive; and
second, armour which was still in a serviceable condition remained useful regardless of age (Simkins 1994b: 18).
The Newstead type of cuirass is a much simplified pattern in which the elaborate extraneous fittings of the older patterns (such as buckles and ties) have been discarded. The hinges have been replaced by simple rivets, and the belt and buckle fastenings by hooks (Warry 1980: 191). The shoulder plates are riveted together and the girdle lames are larger than previous lames, although probably reduced to five or six pairs, the lower two pairs being replaced by a single pair of wide plates. The inner shoulder-guard plate in this type is a single strip instead of three plates hinged together, coming down much further at the front and back (Robinson 1975: 180). This deep inflexible breast and upper back plates were laminated in the same way as the girdles and held together by internal leather straps (Robinson 1975: 180). The simplification of lorica segmentata indicates that earlier designs were probably over engineered and complex cuirass types which were both labour and maintenance intensive and more prone to fall apart (Bishop & Coulston 1993: 209).
http://rubens.anu.edu.au/student.projects97/armour/segmented/seimage/SE7.JPG
diagram showing the construction of the oricae segmentatae of Corbridge type 'B' and 'C'. The detail of the single back-plate, at right centre, defines the difference between the two types (Robinson 1975: 178).
http://rubens.anu.edu.au/student.projects97/armour/segmented/seimage/SE8.JPG
lorica segmentata of the Newstead type . The detail at the central right indicates the method of fastening (Robinson 1975: 179).
decorative embellishments on lorica segmentata are not present in the limited archaeological record. Sculpture evidence indicates the presence of a kilt and upper arm pteruges which would have been attached to an arming doublet beneath the cuirass (Simkins 1994b: 18). This is represented on the base of the column of Antoninus Pius, where groups of Praetorians are represented in a skirt of scallops or pteruges hanging below the bottom-most armour lames (Robinson 1975: 184). Moreover, a contemporary small bronze figure in the British Museum represents a legionary armed in the same manner (Robinson 1975: 184). On panels from the Arch of Marcus Aurelius, pteruges are also shown in conjunction with lorica segmentata hanging below shoulder-guards, suggesting an undergarment to which the pendant straps were attached (Robinson 1975: 184). Second century sculpture, up to the last representation of the lorica segmentata type of armour on the Arch of Severus, add nothing to what is known of the later development of lorica segmentata (Robinson 1975: 183). This form of cuirass was used extensively for most of this period due to its successful form. In contrast to the earlier armours lorica segmentata, was flexible, lighter and easier to maintain and repair. The technical morphology of this armour form adapted and evolved in response to the fighting techniques of a number of diffentent enemies. It is not surprising that the archaeological record is rich in the evidence of this form of armour.
any questions anyone http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Hakonarson
08-25-2003, 10:30
Yeah - why don't you ever acknowledge the sources of your cut and pastes?
Since you've listed you loaction as WA, I'm guessing you're not the David Pearson who assembled this project on Roman Armour in 1996 - http://rubens.anu.edu.au/student.projects97/armour/index.html
the names of authors are in brackets if you noticed...and david wasnt first to assemble this information for your knowledge it was done in british musuem when i was a student in 1994. its common in archaeology field to depend on material from different sources and mine does acknowledge the authors in brackets if you see it.
p.s dont act like a kid you not a historian and archeaology expert like i am i do it for living mate.
so did he acknowledge it mine is not as detailed as his was as he has more pictures and stuff than mine and yes he is my collegue in the field when we produce papers for congress library http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif
and for your info i was born in england i lived there i only moved to us so do not presume things do you understand
Hakonarson
08-25-2003, 22:50
Quote[/b] (khurjan @ Aug. 25 2003,12:24)]the names of authors are in brackets if you noticed...and david wasnt first to assemble this information for your knowledge it was done in british musuem when i was a student in 1994. its common in archaeology field to depend on material from different sources and mine does acknowledge the authors in brackets if you see it.
p.s dont act like a kid you not a historian and archeaology expert like i am i do it for living mate.
Yes the authors are acknowledged, but the work itself is something assembled by another person that you haven't acknowldged.
Since you say you do this for a living I am not surprised you take umbrage - plagiarism is a mortal sin in the academic world, and not acknowledging the author of a work is only one step from it.
It is entirely possible the work you quoted was produced earlier - I took the date from the "last amended" date on the web page. That's irrelevant.
As is the fact that you know the author - that only makes your actions even less worthy.
You've made a point of posting vast swathes of cut-and-paste information here and on the .com forums without any reference to the original authors, and I think it is about time you did so.
It's a matter of personal and professional courtesy, and also honesty http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
I don't think I'm the one acting like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar here.......
Hakonarson
08-25-2003, 22:51
Quote[/b] (khurjan @ Aug. 25 2003,12:28)]and for your info i was born in england i lived there i only moved to us so do not presume things do you understand
huh? what's this got to do with anything?
hey harkonarson...my sources are from library of congress i work there....so tell me soething how can i acknowledge work done by us who works there and compiles the work together for universities to use for courses or when history magazines depends on it? what matters is the original writers get credit which they did in there....
i am not arguing or anything but point is you have not worked in my field so you dont know how we work as historians....dont take my words wrong courtesy is paided to writers who acknowledge the work done by our team at congress library
if you got any questions pm me bro http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Hurin_Rules
08-25-2003, 23:10
Perhaps even more disturbing is the fact that someone that claims to be a professional archaeologist/historian cannot write in full sentences.
dude ever heard of short hand writing....also mate dont try to make fun of how peeps write or talk that is been biased. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif
Sir Robin
08-25-2003, 23:48
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Never fails...
Thank you for all the information and I have seen it before.
It still leaves open the biggest question for me though.
Why did this "banded" plate go out of favor and "chain" armor dominate the european early medieval battlefield?
I would be the first to admit that I am not the expert. Nor would I want to be. However with weight and defensive advantages it would seem that "chain" armors would become rare or be used with "banded" plates instead of replacing them.
well here are few description of banded mail and chainmail from a book by keegan
Banded Mail
Banded mail consisted of small, overlapping flat metal rings sewn on to leather, linen or velvet. One row would be overlapped on the right edge, the next on the left, the one after on the right again and so on. The material that they were sewn on was gathered into a roll or tuck in between the rows which separated them and made sure the rings stayed flat, it is these bands of material that give rise to the name. Despite the description given in the Player's Handbook, this armor was not backed by mail as it would have added too much to the weight for too little gain.
Barding
The mounted warrior would want to protect his expensive mount wherever possible. To this end, it seemed logical to armor the mount as well as it's rider. Chain barding took the form of a coat the horse would wear, fitting around the base of the neck and hanging down to the horse's hips. An extended coif-like garment protected the neck and head. Padding was usually worn underneath, as was the practice with the rider. Chain barding dates from the availability of chain mail. Most barding followed this pattern, the horse's legs were usually left exposed, although doubtless some horses wore a form of greave on their shins. Plate barding enclosed the horse's body in plates, and had an articulated extension for the neck. The horse's head would often be guarded, but protection did not extend to the jaw and underside of the head, these areas being hard to attack anyway. Scale barding was available in partial or full form, the partial form protecting the head, neck, chest, and front quarters of the beast; and the full version also covering the hindquarters and flanks. It is manufactured in the same way as the scale mail worn by men, and was available from the same time period. Brigandine armor was similar to scale, as was the soldier's version, but generally was available only in half versions. By the time full barding came to be introduced, most cavalry used chain or scale. It was available from the time of brigandine for soldiers. Padded and leather armors also were made in the same way as for men, and were available in half or full versions. The principle advantage of these armors was their low weight, making them more suitable for the lighter war-horse.
Chain mail
This armor evolved through many stages, from the mail shirt with elbow-length sleeves worn by the typical Saxon warrior through to the full mail suit enclosing all of a knight bar the face that survived up until the eventual supremacy of plate. For those unsure as to the construction and nature of chain mail, it is made of interwoven metal rings. Each link was made by twisting metal wire around a dowel, and then it was cut using a chisel to form a series of open-ended rings. They were made to overlap and once they were interlinked, the ends were hammered closed and sealed with a punch. Each ring in a suit of mail generally is linked to four others. An undergarment is always worn as mail is chafing to wear, but it does not require a backing, unlike banded mail. Later on, the undergarment would be heavily padded to cushion bludgeoning blows.
Firstly, we have the chain mail armor used at about the time of the Norman Conquest. This, in the case of the Saxons, was a mail shirt, of about the same proportions as a modern T-shirt. It was worn over a heavy woollen shirt that reached down to the knees, and this would have been more to prevent chafing than to cushion blows. The Saxon warrior usually combined it with a round shield. The Norman soldiers wore a more advanced costume, consisting of a mail hauberk with short sleeves open to the elbow, reaching down to knee level at front and back. This hauberk would not be made of interlinked rings, but of separate rings sewn on to a linen or leather backing, a hybrid of banded and chain mail. At the centre of the front and back it was slit by vents reaching up to the waist, for ease of use while on horseback. It was combined with a helmet (at this point, basically an upturned metal bowl with a nasal protecting bar) and a kite shield. The helmet would often be worn over a chain coif.
This equipment went basically unchanged until the 12th Century AD. Until then, it merely expanded to cover other areas of the body. The sleeves were extended to the wrist, and mittens added. These were made like child's mittens, with a bag for the thumb and a larger one for the fingers. Obviously, manual dexterity was greatly hindered, but the ability to hold and use a sword remained unhindered. The palm would be made of cloth or leather rather than mail so that it would flex more easily, and the mittens were designed so that they could be detached and hung from the wrists when not in use. Leg protection would take the form of either mail hose or mail greaves strapped on round the calf. By this point, the hood, shirt and arm protection was integrated into one piece, and a surcoat would be worn over the whole.
hope that gives you some idea buddy
here is a good pdf on it
http://users.wpi.edu/~jforgeng/MedievalIQP/IQP.pdf
Hakonarson
08-26-2003, 00:35
Although mail is fiddly, it is apparently relatively easy to draw through smaller and smaller holes to make it - I've seen re-enactors do it with billets of iron - you can get quite a long bit of wire from a seemingly small piece.
However making fairly large plates of reasonably uniform good quality seems to me a much more difficult proposition - although possibly easier if you have the technology available.
Ie IMO it took a lower level of technology to make mail than something like Segmentata.
Khurjan I have no questions for PM, and it's a simple matter to post a URL that you've cut and pasted from - whether it be a LoC source or anywhere else.
hakonarson buddy lets shake hands and forget all this and help the poor peeps who need help with history http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
its true what hark said chain mail is low tech armour while segmented plate armour is more labour and technology intensive and requires alot of care and repair
Yeah I got questions.
1. Where's the snazzy write up on lamellar?
2. The muscled cuirass, considering the lack of surviving examples isn't possible they were simply an artistic convention to give that proper "hellenistic look"?
2a. You can add to that the "Attic" helmet. Shows up in some monuments but so far none have been found.
3. Segmentata. Does the number of surviving specimins mean it was more widely used or simply that it was more likely to survive than the iron mail used by the Romans? Maybe those segmentata's were packed away in boxes because no-one wanted to wear it:)
I've seen mail fragments dated to the 4th and 6th century AD that are barely recognizable lumps of rust. And this can still be considered a "good find" for mail since you can at least determine the method of construction.
4. Segmentata. What is the monument depicted? I'm asking because this is what I referred earlier about the different depictions of soldiers in monuments done by commisioned artists vs. ones done by the soldiers themselves.
5. Segmentata again. Similiar to Sir Robin's question by lets stick to the Roman period. Why did the segmentata seem to go out of use within the empire? If it was better in regards to protection and economics why did it seem to fade away?
6. Scale.
Quote[/b] ]of yellow bronze (perhaps a result of oxidization) Is that your comment or authors? I was of the understanding that Roman bronze was more the color of our common brass and not what nowdays we consider "bronze".
Useless trivia time. Sometimes alternate rows of scale would be tinned. No pratical value but visually pleasing.
7. Connolly. Is he the one does those lovely illustrated books that usually end up in the Childrens section of your library?
try this site its a heaven for armours and stuff
http://www21.brinkster.com/annascrafts/armor.htm
http://uk.geocities.com/the_isles/flamewar/armour4.htm
http://www.levantia.com.au/military/KKK.html
http://victorian.fortunecity.com/manet/394/page19c.htm
these pages should give you info on lamellar armour and chainmail
for muscled cuirass
here are sites
http://www.larp.com/legioxx/tcolor.html
http://rubens.anu.edu.au/student.projects97/armour/muscle/muimage/MUt.GIF
Bronze metal muscle cuirass, 5th to 3rd century B.C. Showing hinges and tie rings located on the left side. British Museum (Robinson 1975: 147).
Armor of Ancient Rome Ancient Rome expended a great deal of economic resources and effort upon conquest and expansion through military means. The role of armor was fundamental in this expansion as it played a significant role in the success of the Roman armies on the battlefield. There were three common requirements for armor construction throughout its history: The first was that armor had to be flexible enough to allow the wearer freedom of movement; second, it also had to be lightweight enough to be worn without tiring the wearer while providing protection against opponents' weapons; and third, armor had to be cost effective. These three aspects influenced the evolution of Roman cuirass (lorica) design throughout Rome’s history. The central concept in the study of Roman armor is that it was always a compromise between mobility, protection, and cost. There were at least four cuirass types in use during the first century A.D. These were the muscle, scale, mail, and segmented cuirasses with mail and segmented cuirasses being the most predominant. The study of these armor types relies upon three main sources of evidence: iconographic (e.g., sculpture, tombstones, monuments); archaeological; and literary sources. The evolution of Roman lorica was driven by the needs and circumstances of the Roman Army. Armies of the 1st century A.D. were firmly established within the Empire and control fell solely under the auspices of the Emperor. Increasingly the main strength of the Roman army, up to thirty legions, was garrisoned on the frontiers. Only a token military force, the Praetorian Guard, remained in Rome. The military situation in this period was seldom dormant. In the 1st century the invasion of Britain (A.D.43) necessitated the reorganization of legions and auxiliaries over much of north west Europe. Further reorganization occurred after the civil war of A.D.69, when the victorious Flavian dynasty dispersed disloyal units. As the Empire's expansion slowed, permanent borders were established. Auxiliaries patrolled the borders and legionnaires were stationed within the frontiers to act as a strategic reserve and intimidate potentially rebellious provinces. The army can be divided into two distinct parts: the legion and the auxiliary ( auxilia), with a marked social division existing between the two. Only Roman citizens could become legionnaires, while auxilia were composed of non citizens recruited from Rome's client states and tribes. These legions were supported by the non citizen auxilia consisting of infantry cohorts and cavalry (alae). A legion consisted of around 5,000 men which were mostly heavy foot soldiers. However, it is only possible to attempt a rough estimate of the men who constituted a legion. It has been estimated that the total number of Roman troops, including legions and auxilia, numbered more than 300,000 during the first century A.D. It has also been assumed that the legionary and auxiliary troops were equipped differently. This notion is based on evidence from a single source, Trajan's column, which shows clear distinctions between legionary and auxiliary equipment. The early view put forward by historians such as Webster was that the equipment issued to legionnaires was remarkably uniform throughout the empire. However, the archaeological evidence does not support this theory, showing that a wide range of types and ages of equipment was in use at any one time. Peterson argues that uniformity in the Roman army may have only extended to soldiers having their own serviceable body armor, helmet, weapons and shield displaying a common unit emblem. Bishop and Coulston suggest that in this period soldiers had to purchase their own equipment. The system encouraged the individual to be more respectful of their equipment by introducing a sense of personal responsibility. Most of this equipment may have been purchased from army stock, but soldiers may have been free to buy more elaborate or expensive items from private craftsmen. As this was probably beyond the economic means of most soldiers, elaborate cuirasses have been attributed only to soldiers of centurion rank or higher. Bishop further proposes that military equipment could be sold back to the legions upon retirement or death of the owner, and therefore could be passed down to a number of different owners. He cites evidence of equipment which has been found with several owner inscriptions. The cost of this equipment would probably have forced recycling, and in conjunction with the repair of damaged equipment this may have meant that the life of an object could be expected to last for many years. These factors also suggest that the actual production of new loricae at any one time may have been fairly low. One of the most widely recognized of these Roman lorica was the so called 'muscle' cuirass, probably Hellenistic in origin. This cuirass was molded on the contours of the muscles of the male chest which were reproduced in an idealized manner. This type of cuirass was probably constructed from iron or bronze, consisting of a high-waisted or hip length breastplate. Shoulder straps hinged to the edges of the back plate, with their forward extremities tied down to rings on the breast. These plates had side fastenings with perhaps two hinges or a pair of rings joined by ties providing for the soldier's left and right flanks. None of these metallic muscled cuirasses of the Roman period have survived in the archaeological record. However, Etruscan metal muscle cuirasses dating from 5th to the 3rd Century B.C. have been found. Muscle cuirasses have also been believed to have been made of leather. However, a molded leather cuirass would have to be very thick and rigid to have any defensive qualities. Robinson suggests that this cuirass type was probably worn almost exclusively by emperors and top-ranking military leaders as a symbol of Roman might and sovereignty. Another type of cuirass was the lorica squamata, also known as scaled or jezeraint armor. Scale armor is perhaps the oldest type of metal body armor. Peterson proposed that its origins date to at least the 2nd millennium B.C., having a long history of use in Greece and the East. Despite its early origins it was used throughout the entire period of Roman dominance. Scale armor was usually depicted with short sleeves, and the lower edges reaching the upper thighs. Scale armor was made from both iron and bronze. The manufacture of scale armor involved small sections of metal sheeting of varying sizes being attached by wires or riveted to their neighbors and sewn onto a suitably flexible foundation of hide or strong cloth. Early scale armor was commonly joined by small twisted links of bronze wiring, positioned in horizontal rows, overlapping upwards and layered like scales of a fish or in the manner of roof tiles. Evidence of parts of a bronze lorica squamata was found at the site of Corstopitum (Corbridge) in Northumberland England. These scales were very small, and due to the expense incurred in manufacturing such fine armor, Simkins proposes that the man, probably an officer, no doubt would have purchased this armor himself. A similar group of 346 scales which was found in the fort of Newstead (A.D. 98-100), of yellow bronze (perhaps a result of oxidization), are larger measuring 2.9 cm by 1.2 cm. Generally, the defensive qualities of scale are inferior to mail armor, being neither as strong nor as flexible. It was nevertheless popular throughout the Roman period, possibly because it appears that it may have been simpler to manufacture and repair than other loricae (although presumably more difficult to maintain because of its intricate construction). Experimental archaeology conducted by Massey has tested reconstructions of known arrowheads against various body defenses used in Roman times. At a range of 7 meters, Massey argues that arrowheads seemed to penetrate this armor type one out of every two occasions. He suggests that this may occur due to the shape of the scales and the way in which the scales have been assembled. Presumably the changing conditions of the test would also affect the frequency of penetration. Further, it is concluded that tests indicated that when scale armor had been strengthened by wiring in a series of horizontal rows, none of the known contemporary arrow types could penetrate it, although the scales were severely deformed. A modern parallel would be modern body armor (kevlar), which will stop some bullets however, the impact may nonetheless cause severe trauma such as internal hemorrhaging. Archaeological finds appear to indicate that this type of armor was used much more widely than the surviving sculptures suggest, although only fragments of the armor survive. Despite this evidence the use of lorica squamatae does not appear to have been as extensive as mail. Peterson suggests that the sculptured record indicates that lorica squamata was largely the exclusive equipment of centurions and high-ranking officers between the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D.. Mail was also known as lorica hamata by the Romans. It is generally accepted that the Romans acquired their knowledge of mail-making from the Celts, who were the original fabricators of this form of armor. Mail consists of metal rings, each one linked through four others, two in the row above it and two below. The fine mail of the 1st century could be made from bronze or iron rings measuring as little as 3mm in diameter. Only fragments of mail exist in the archaeological record but the sculptured record indicates that there were many variations of lorica hamata. The method of construction of mail rings in Roman times is similar to that of later periods. Warry says that mail could be made from rings of two sorts: solid rings or opened, linked rings which could be either butted or riveted shut. Robinson proposes that the oldest and quickest method of construction is where every alternate row of rings is punched out of sheet metal and the rows connecting them are made from wire, with their ends flattened, overlapped, punched and riveted. However, there is little evidence of punched rings in the archaeological record. The Romans appear to have almost always riveted the ends of the rings together, the result being that the mail was much stronger than the butted variety, made by simply butting the wire ends together and which could be torn open quite readily. These rings could vary in size from an outside diameter ranging between 3mm and 9mm, the latter being found in post 1st century A.D. sites. There were advantages and disadvantages in using mail armor. The rings provided excellent defense against slashing cuts and was also effective against thrusts, while remaining very flexible. As there were only interlinking rings to give it form the armor suffered little from wear and could be repaired even when badly damaged. Mail armor could be easily recycled and passed down from the legion to the auxiliary, as it would still remain functional as armor regardless of its age or even if superseded by another type. This may be indicated by the sculptured record from later periods such as Trajan's column, which shows that earlier cuirass types were in use with the western legions during the Dacian campaigns. A disadvantage of mail over other cuirasses is that its manufacture is extremely labor intensive, perhaps taking as much as 180 hours to make a complete mail hauberk of the simplest type worn by auxiliaries from 1/4 inch stamped and butted wire rings. Clearly armor of this type must have been a costly exercise to manufacture. While it afforded reasonable freedom of movement, it was also very heavy, weighing perhaps as much as 15pounds . The weight may have been countered by the use of a cingulum militare (a military belt), which could be drawn tightly about the waist, thereby distributing part of the weight onto the hips and relieving the shoulders of part of their burden. Moreover, tests using contemporary arrow types by Massey suggests that most arrowhead types consistently penetrated the mail to a depth that would prove lethal to the wearer. However, bunching of the mail at suspension points prevented penetration of the mail beyond a depth of 3-5 cm. This [implies] that the doubling of mail shoulder defenses known to be practiced by both Romans and Celts may have saved the life of their owners.” These observations are consistent with Plutarch's writings of the life of Marcus Licinius Crassus who in 53 B.C. engaged the Parthians with his army in the deserts of Mesopotamia at the Battle of Carrhae. Plutarch was not exaggerating when he spoke of arrows: ...which could pierce armor and pass through every kind of [defensive] covering, hard or soft alike . . . or of . . . hands [pinned] to their shields, and their feet nailed through into the ground, so that they [were capable] neither fly nor fight. The armor in question was probably mail as it was used extensively by legionnaires during the late Republic until the introduction of the lorica segmentata in Claudian times. Massey's testing also showed that arrow shafts were occasionally locked into place by the deformed mail rings through which these had passed, which would have made them difficult to remove and the wounds considerably more difficult to treat. Mail also would not absorb the impact of a blow, unless extremely well padded by a very thick doublet, and the mail could also be driven into the flesh of the wearer. It is, perhaps, because of these disadvantages that after the introduction of segmental armor, mail was probably largely confined to the auxiliary troops. The form of cuirass for which the 1st century is best known is the lorica segmentata. The name was not invented by the Romans but came into use during the Renaissance. It was the first type of articulated plate armor cuirass, the origins of which are unclear. The segmental cuirass may have found its way into the Roman army from the gladiatorial arena. The first time the Roman legionnaires came into contact with this armor may have been during the revolt of Florus and Sacrovir in 21 A.D. This revolt consisted of heavily armored gladiators, called crupellarii, fighting against legionnaires. Tacitus described how armored gladiators were killed by the legionnaires hacking through their segmented armor with pickaxes. It is highly probable that this form of armor was being issued as standard legionary equipment by the time the Emperor Claudius' troops invaded Britain in A.D.43. The lorica segmentata was constructed of collar and shoulder units which consisted of 24 plates (lames) and 16 girdle plates. The latter were half semicircular iron lames, consisting of strips of iron sheet, and were positioned horizontally, riveted onto leather straps. The lames were laced at the center of the breast and back in such a way as to encircle the trunk completely while still allowing the body considerable freedom of movement. The articulation of the bands was kept in place by a complicated system of straps and buckles. Fastened on the inside by leather straps and fastened at the front and back with laces, buckles and straps. These fittings, were usually made of a thin brass sheet. The defense was completed with two half-collars (shoulder guards) of articulated lames. Each collar consisted of a small breastplate (3.3 cm by 8.6 cm wide at the lower end) which was fastened to other lames that formed a neck guard. Both of the shoulder-guards consisted of five plates. The largest upper plates were made from three pieces joined to each other by bronze hinges as were the collar units beneath. The lorica segmentata was superior to mail in both manufacturing and as armor. However, the armor's chief advantage was in its weight, around 12lb, depending upon the thickness of plates used. Plates were made by hammer work, and Bishop and Coulston note that an analysis of surviving fragments of iron plates of the lorica segmentata type show that they had not been hardened in any way, although the Romans are known to have been aware of this technique. They also suggest that Roman armorers deliberately produced 'soft' armor that could absorb the force of a blow as it crumpled. This softness allowed the metal to deform extensively, absorbing the impact of weapons and denying them the resistance needed to penetrate effectively. Massey cites evidence of contemporary arrowhead types used against this type of armor. On no occasion did arrowheads of any type tested afford lethal penetration. Shots directed at this type of armor either glanced off or gave minimal penetration. This effectiveness was apparently due to a combination of the softness of the metal and the internal gap between the plates. Massey also proposes that up until the introduction of lorica segmentata in Claudian times there was no armor form in widespread use which could guarantee the wearer's safety against arrow attack. This armor was also especially fortified in shoulder-defense. As such it may have normally been employed by particular legions, notably those fighting the Celts, whose style of fighting and use of weapons such as the long sword posed a particular threat to the head and shoulders of the line infantryman. Segmented plate armor had disadvantages as well. Most notable is the loss of protection to the thighs and upper arms. Simkins states that during the Emperor Trajan's Dacian campaign, the Romans fought against adversaries armed with long scythe-like swords called falx. These were capable of reaching past the legionnaire’s scutum (a large curved shield) to injure the unprotected sword arm. This weapon may have also endangered the soldiers' legs which from Republican times were bare, protection here being compromised for the sake of mobility. However, the Adamklissi monument suggests that legionnaires in these two campaigns may have augmented their protection with greaves and segmental armguards similar to those worn by gladiators. The archaeological record provides rich evidence of this type of armor. Excavation has provided more evidence of this form of cuirass than both scale and mail. The most important discovery was made in 1964, at the site of the Roman station of Corstopitum in Northumberland (Corbridge) at Hadrian's Wall, when two complete sets of this type were found in a wooden chest buried below the floor of a timber building of the Flavian period fort. This is the only site where this type of armor has been found in a reasonably complete state, despite the fact that copper alloy buckles, hinges, hooks and loops of this armor are a common find on 1st century Roman military sites throughout Europe and the Golan Heights in Israel, indicating its widespread use. Another pattern of lorica segmentata has been identified and tentatively reconstructed from fragments found in the well in the headquarters building at Newstead near Melrose in Scotland. Simkins suggests that this pattern was probably developed in the later years of the 1st century and is the model for the majority of representations of legionary soldiers on Trajan's Column. It is difficult to tell how long the earlier Corbridge pattern lorica remained in use until it was eventually replaced by the Newstead type. They may have continued for quite some time after the introduction of the Newstead type for two reasons. First, like the replacement of mail by segmented armor types, re-equipping legions with new armor was expensive; and second, armor which was still in a serviceable condition remained useful regardless of age. The Newstead type of cuirass is a much simplified pattern in which the elaborate fittings of the older patterns (such as buckles and ties) have been discarded. The hinges have been replaced by simple rivets, and the belt and buckle fastenings by hooks. The shoulder plates are riveted together and the girdle lames are larger than previous lames, although probably reduced to five or six pairs, the lower two pairs being replaced by a single pair of wide plates. The inner shoulder-guard plate in this type is a single strip instead of three plates hinged together, coming down much further at the front and back. This deep inflexible breast and upper back plates were laminated in the same way as the girdles and held together by internal leather straps. The simplification of the lorica segmentata indicates that earlier designs were probably over engineered and the complex cuirass types were both labor and maintenance intensive and more prone to fall apart. This form of cuirass was used extensively for most of this period due to its successful form. In contrast to the earlier armors the lorica segmentata was flexible, lighter and easier to maintain and repair. The design of this armor also adapted and evolved in response to the fighting techniques of a number of different enemies and the economic needs of Rome at this time. Armor has much to tell about the Roman Army, its method of waging war, and the economy of the first century. The change in military equipment illustrates a process whereby Roman forces borrowed the technology of other people whom they came into conflict. These adaptions are illustrated by the cuirass forms taken from the Greeks, and the Celts. Innovation occurred using the available military and civilian technology to counter a threat posed by a particular enemy. Thus by the 1st century A.D. much of the soldiers' equipment, including the cuirass, was derived from enemies of earlier periods. The four types of cuirass identified in this paper have their own characteristics and variations. They all have benefits or drawbacks in terms of protection, mobility and cost. There appears to be a trend toward the most favorable balance between these three factors which ultimately led to the introduction of lorica segmentata and then its simplification of form. Bibliography Bibliography Balent, M., The Compendium of Weapons, Armour & Castles. New York: Palladium Books, 1989. Bishop, M.C.”The Production and Distribution of Roman Military Equipment.” BAR International Series 275, Oxford: 1985. Bishop, M.C., and Coulston, J.C.N., Roman Military Equipment. Haverfordwest: 1989. Bishop, M.C., and Coulston, J.C.N., Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd, 1993. Bohec, Y., The Imperial Roman Army. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd, 1994. Bunson, M., Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire. New York: Facts on File, 1994. Connolly, P., The Roman Army. Paulton: Purnell & Sons, 1982. Griess, T.E., ed. Ancient and Medieval Warfare: West Point Military History Series. New Jersey: Avery Publishing, 1984. Massey, D., “Roman Archery Tested.” Military Illustrated: Past & Present 74 (1994) : 36-38. Peterson, D., “Legio XIIIIGMV: Roman Legionaries Recreated (2).” Military Illustrated: Past & Present 47 (1992) : 36-42. Robinson, H.R., The Armour of Imperial Rome. London: Arms & Armour Press, 1975. Simkins, M., The Roman Army from Caesar to Trajan. Narwich: Osprey Military Press, 1974. Simkins, M., The Roman Army from Caesar to Trajan. Hong Kong: Osprey Military Press, 1994. Simkins, M., The Roman Army from Hadrian to Constantine. Hong Kong: Osprey Military Press, 1994. Tarrassuk, L., and Blair, C. ed. The Complete Encyclopedia of Arms and Weapons. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd, 1982. Warry, J., Warfare in the Classical World. London: Salamander Books Ltd, 1980. Webster, G., The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries A.D. London: Adams & Charles Black, 1969. Ancient Authors Plutarch, Plutarch's Lives Vol.III, Translated by Arthur Hugh Clough. London: Everyman's Library, 1971. Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome, Translated by Michael Grant. London: Penguin Classics, 1989. Caesar, The Conquest of Gaul. Translated by S.A. Hanford. New York: Penguin Classics, 1983.
hope this helps
Hurin_Rules
08-26-2003, 04:29
Ok, no more flames from me. Lets all get along http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I'll just make two comments:
Keegan is crap when it comes to medieval stuff. He simply doesn't know much about the Middle Ages (though Face of Battle was a legitimate masterpiece). In his history of warfare he says things like the crossbow was invented in the 13th century and other nonsense. I would look more to Kelly DeVries, Medieval Military Technology.
The odd thing is that in the Middle Ages, despite the fall of Rome and population decline and all the rest of it, the standard level of iron technology gradually rose. What do I mean by that? I mean that the blacksmith became a standard part of village life, and average people had more and more of it, and used it for more and more things. They used it for horseshoes (which came to Europe during the Middle Ages), for farm implements, for ploughs and heavy horse collars (another medieval invention), and yes, for weapons and armor. So, the theory that chain is less of a hassle technologically may still work-- but we should note that the artisans of the Middle Ages eventually far surpassed their classical cousins in their ability to fashion high quality iron and steel. A full suit of Gothic Plate was superior to anything the Romans ever made.
yup you right hurin about gothic armour.
gothic armour was the pinnacle of armour making it was even shot proof as armourers would shot a arbeqeues ball against it to prove it to his prospective client... well a late medieval man -at-arm was as professional and disciplined and more terrifying than a roman legionnaire in killing terms.
Well, the Roman chain mail might not have been all that impressive as it was 4-ring (every ring had 4 rings connected), that type was later called light mail becuase in the Medieval times 6-ring and 8-ring mail was used by heavier infantry and cavalry.
So again, while chain mail might have been less technological intensive it doesn't meant advances can't be made on it.
Though I don't know how great such heavy advances can be. But perhaps each individual ring was smaller?
frogbeastegg
08-26-2003, 11:09
Quote[/b] (LCJr @ Aug. 26 2003,01:39)]7. Connolly. Is he the one does those lovely illustrated books that usually end up in the Childrens section of your library?
Yes Peter Connolly is the one who does those wonderful books that get dumped in the children’s section. He's one of the best authorities on the classical world, especially on warfare and any book by him is worth reading in my opinion. It says a lot about out world when any book with pictures gets filled under childrens, after all adults like pretty pictures too
Hakonarson
08-26-2003, 11:14
Once yuo've made the wire the size of the rings and the linking of them is kindof trivial to develop - even beginner re-enactors can figure it out by themselves (well I did...)
Roman chain went down to as little as 3mm internal diameter, and at least some of them were riveted (ie the ends flattened, overlapped, a hole punched through and a rivet put in the hole and peened over) - although I'm not sure whether 3mm mail would have been
Catiline
08-26-2003, 13:05
Connolly isn't all that. He's a good introduction, at least in regard to his archaeology and reconstructions of equipment. BUT his books are not upto date on this info and his reconstructions of battles and tactics are crap, and he's not a good historian. The concepts he puts forward for the olybian legion are rubbish. If you want an introduction to that read Adrian Goldsworthy.
Read Connolly, admire the pictures, but take him with a large pinch of salt.
Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Aug. 26 2003,05:14)]Once yuo've made the wire the size of the rings and the linking of them is kindof trivial to develop - even beginner re-enactors can figure it out by themselves (well I did...)
Roman chain went down to as little as 3mm internal diameter, and at least some of them were riveted (ie the ends flattened, overlapped, a hole punched through and a rivet put in the hole and peened over) - although I'm not sure whether 3mm mail would have been
Well, it wasn't really the dificulty I meant, but the effectiveness of smaller rings (to save weight) in the heavier chain mails I mentioned.
By your last sentence I take it you mean "I'm not sure whether 3mm mail would have been effective" Am I correct? Or did you mean used?
shingenmitch2
08-26-2003, 20:09
I believe Hak means he doesn't know if the 3mm mail would have been riveted or not.
Krax, the finer the mail (i.e. smaller and more connections per ring) the denser and more effective the mail becomes. There is more metal per square inch even though the rings themselves are smaller. However, this density of metal means more weight overall. So small rings usually means more weight not less.
@Khurjan
To be perfectly blunt you answered none of my questions. The cut and paste was a repeat of what you'd already posted.
One of the links you provided answered one. Re: segmentata what's generally found is the brass fittings and not the iron/steel armor itself.
You've said your archaeology and history expert so what exactly is your field of expertise? Do you not have any knowledge, theories or opinions of your own you could share?
Hakonarson
08-26-2003, 23:49
Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ Aug. 26 2003,14:09)]I believe Hak means he doesn't know if the 3mm mail would have been riveted or not.
Krax, the finer the mail (i.e. smaller and more connections per ring) the denser and more effective the mail becomes. There is more metal per square inch even though the rings themselves are smaller. However, this density of metal means more weight overall. So small rings usually means more weight not less.
Yep - quite right...on both points - thanks.
Quote[/b] (LCJr @ Aug. 26 2003,09:33)]@Khurjan
To be perfectly blunt you answered none of my questions. The cut and paste was a repeat of what you'd already posted.
One of the links you provided answered one. Re: segmentata what's generally found is the brass fittings and not the iron/steel armor itself.
You've said your archaeology and history expert so what exactly is your field of expertise? Do you not have any knowledge, theories or opinions of your own you could share?
dude i am been nice here and i provided links to you so you can research it yourself i dont get paided by you or others to work full time on here. period so i suggest that you take your rantings and go elsewhere
to lcjr
dude you didnt bother reading the sites i sent you here are some extracts from there that must have slipped your mind and eyes
1. Where's the snazzy write up on lamellar?
extract from
http://uk.geocities.com/the_isles/flamewar/armour4.htm
Lamellar armour is an eastern invention, popular with the steppe tribes, and used by the East-roman and Byzantine empires will into the middle ages. Lamellar armour was used in Scandinavia to a lesser extent at least as late as 1361. Lamellar differs from scale armour primarily in the fact that the plates are laced to each other, and not to a backing fabric (note; this makes lamellar armour a very cool armour to wear, lots of good ventilation). Lamellar armour also tends to be a bit stiffer than scale, if the thongs are drawn tight.
2. The muscled cuirass, considering the lack of surviving examples isn't possible they were simply an artistic convention to give that proper "hellenistic look"?
Armor of Ancient Rome Ancient Rome expended a great deal of economic resources and effort upon conquest and expansion through military means. The role of armor was fundamental in this expansion as it played a significant role in the success of the Roman armies on the battlefield. There were three common requirements for armor construction throughout its history: The first was that armor had to be flexible enough to allow the wearer freedom of movement; second, it also had to be lightweight enough to be worn without tiring the wearer while providing protection against opponents' weapons; and third, armor had to be cost effective. These three aspects influenced the evolution of Roman cuirass (lorica) design throughout Rome’s history. The central concept in the study of Roman armor is that it was always a compromise between mobility, protection, and cost. There were at least four cuirass types in use during the first century A.D. These were the muscle, scale, mail, and segmented cuirasses with mail and segmented cuirasses being the most predominant......
and rest of the answers are there..i suggest you either do your homework when you want info or get new pair of glasses before you flame someone trying to help
Dude once again I ask what exactly what is your field of expertise?
Again do you have any knowledge, theories or opinions of your own you can share? This is a discussion forum not a cut and paste forum.
I looked over the links and it wasn't really much of anything I haven't seen before.
Quote[/b] ]any questions anyone http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Dude if you don't have any knowledge on the subject then don't try to play expert with a few cut and paste jobs and some links. And dude cut the injured party act because I doubt if anyone's buying it.
Catiline
08-27-2003, 01:34
please try and keep things civilised lads.
Quote[/b] (khurjan @ Aug. 26 2003,18:41)]and rest of the answers are there..i suggest you either do your homework when you want info or get new pair of glasses before you flame someone trying to help
I see this many flames here... 0
You are extremely fast to get the feeling people are after you. Why? They are perfectly valid questions and not the least offensive.
Quote[/b] (LCJr @ Aug. 26 2003,11:34)]Dude once again I ask what exactly what is your field of expertise?
Again do you have any knowledge, theories or opinions of your own you can share? This is a discussion forum not a cut and paste forum.
I looked over the links and it wasn't really much of anything I haven't seen before.
Quote[/b] ]any questions anyone http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Dude if you don't have any knowledge on the subject then don't try to play expert with a few cut and paste jobs and some links. And dude cut the injured party act because I doubt if anyone's buying it.
as i said to you before if your first language is not english...that what i provide is free and for you to read. You do not pay me or are my employer. Do not jump to conclusions that i am here to purely waste my time on losers like you. Come on its not my fault that you didnt learn how to read properly or grasp the linguistics and concepts of what it means to read the bloody links and make your own conclusions.
dude before you accuse me of copy and paste understand that i did that to emphasis to you points you missed trying to read those sites.
Pellinor
08-27-2003, 14:12
A couple of points on European mail armour:
- Roman mail is known to go down to 3mm rings, all riveted.
- Mail seems to have been invented by the Celts about 300-500 BC and adopted by the Romans.
- The Normans used proper linked mail, not rings individually sewn to a backing. The latter idea comes from looking at the Bayeux Tapestry, where the Norman mail is represented (for convenience) by little circles all over the knight's body, but if you take that as gospel then the armour was actually about 100 rings of 3" diameter or so, which is virtually useless as armour.
- All known battlefield mail is riveted closed, save for some very late (19th century) African stuff. Some parade armour was not riveted.
- There are no authenticated cases of European mail linking more than 4 rings at a time. There are rumours that there may be some, and there is a piece in the British Museum which looks to me as it parts of it might be 6 in 1, but no one has documented any such. Some Eastern armour uses 6 in 1, but a different pattern.
- It is generally thought than mail was developed before plate as you only need small relatively bits of iron for the rings. Getting a big enough lump of iron for a breastplate requires relatively sophisticated equipment. Swords are easier: you can pattern weld them out of small bits, but this is harder to do with plates.
The replacement of mail by segmentata was, IMO, because the latter is easier, quicker and cheaper to make - but only once you have the technology to make biggish blooms of iron in quantity. Once you get to the right tech level the change over is a no-brainer. When the Dark Ages come along, of course, we go back to mail, as the iron foundries have lost their old skill, which was regained in the 12th century or so leading to mediaeval plate harnesses.
Japanese and other Eastern mail is a whole different ball game: different patterns, and a tendency to combine it with plates or scales.
Hakonarson
08-27-2003, 23:33
Good post -thanks Pellinor - do you have any reference sites for this?
One thing tho - Segmentata was replaced by mail and scal well before the dark ages - it was apparently completely out of use by the middle of the 3rd century AD, so I'm not sure that the "they lost the technology" argument can be applied.
Khurjan your repeated evasion of the questions concerning your area of expertise and your attempts to turn this into some kind flame war make me strongly suspect you are not what you claim to be.
You are correct that you not being paid to answer any questions for anyone. However if that is the case don't offer to do so.
Pelinor
I have an Osprey book(Late Roman Infantryman by Simon Macdowall) showing two pictures, one a rusted fragment of mail dated to the 6th century AD and a reconstruction of it by the British Museum. It is of the butted type but no further information so can't say if it came from a shirt or a helmet neckguard.
The mail shirt found at Sutton Hoo was constructed of alternate rows of riveted and butted. I believe the Norman hauberks( and probably others) also used the same construction.
Re: the segmentata. My problem with the loss of technology theory is that the Eastern half of the empire survived (til the 13th century???) relatively intact and with a strong economy. It seems to me if segmentata really offered great advantages in protection and economy some pains would have been taken to preserve the knowledge. But thats just my opinion:)
Pellinor
08-28-2003, 13:04
Hakonarson: the best reference site for mail armour in general is http://www.erikdschmid.com/TMRS_1.htm
Useful forums can be found at http://www.arador.com/discforums/index.php
I think mail was replaced by segmentata, and only then came in again when segmentata faded away as the empire faded
LCJr: all the mail I have seen (and, AFAIK, all that there is) going back as far as 6th century has been so badly rusted that the best one can get from it is a rough indication of the diameter. The butted/riveted question cannot be decided either way, really, but none has been found which is definitely butted (IIRC) and much is definitely riveted. In addition, if you're starting from lumps of iron riveting the rings takes a relatively small amount of effort to get a drastic improvement in strength, so I would be very surprised if anyone skimped on the riveting.
The exception is for reconstructions: starting from wire, riveting adds a fair bit of complexity (you're already nearly there with wire, as making it is hard), so many reconstructions are purely butted: it illustrates the interlinking rings nicely, and ignores only the detail of ring constriction.
The Sutton Hoo shirt is a lump of rust with some patterns on the outside: again, hard to tell whether it's riveted or not. As mail is only as strong as the weakest link, half riveted half butted is harder to make than all butted but not noticeably stronger, so I would be amazed if that were the actual construction.
You may be thinking of half riveted plus half solid, where the solid rings are either punched out of sheet metal or are welded closed (forge welding does nicely, I understand). This is easier to make than all riveted, in some ways, and is if anything slightly stronger, so is quite common.
To refine the "lost the technology" argument: I think that if you want to mass produce armour cheaply and have the technology for plates, then plate or segmentata or that sort of style is better than mail. I know less of the eastern empire than of the western, but I understand that the typical Byzantine armour was lamellar. This perhaps supports the idea that if you can make iron plates you use them in preference to rings, it's just that for whatever reason lamellar was preferred to segmentata. To be fair, segmentata is a pretty crude form of plate. Most reconstructions have an awful lot of gaps and sticky-out edges, although I think this is largely because the plates are only curved in one dimension. If curved in the other plane it would probably be better, but even so lamellar is much easier to tailor to get a smooth surface to deflect blows.
Perhaps lamellar is just a further development: possibly harder to make than segmentata but certainly easier than mail (given the tech); better at protecting from cuts and thrusts than segmentata, being tailored; better at protecting from percussion than mail, being (semi-)rigid.
Pell.R.
Now I'm curious so I'll see if I can find something on the web. Could be what I read about riveted+butted was completely incorrect, wouldn't be the first time.
edit> Looks like you are absolutely correct all mail was either riveted or riveted and solid. Learned something new today:)
That MRS link looks quite interesting, downloading the one on Roman mail now:) Looking at the E. European/Russian sample I see what you mean by riveted and punched/welded.
The roman style of lamellar used narrow rectangular plates with the long sides running vertically. Flexibilty was extremely poor, unlike the Japanese varieties, and generally covered the same area as a solid breastplate would i.e. for cavalry it couldn't extend past the waist. My limited understanding is that only officers and the elites like heavy cav used lamellar in the Eastern half so it may been expensive(money/time or both) to make.
Re: the segmentata again. My personal feeling is that must have been something "wrong" with it. The image of legionaires wearing a scarf/bandana(whatever you want to call it) around the neck seems to start with the introduction of the segmentata so maybe it just rubbed in all the wrong places and wasn't popular with the troops, who knows. Losing the technology just doesn't seem possible to me. If it was used in the quantities that historians think it was a lot of people, probably in numerous factories to ease transportation, had to know how to make it and the metal plates.
edit: I'm reading through the "Manufacture of Mail in Medieval Europe" by Alan Williams and in the opening paragragh he has this to say which I found rather odd.
Quote[/b] ] ...Representations of Roman soldiers prior to first century show clad in mail-shirts rather than plate(Source given Robinson "The Armour of Imperial Rome"). Mail returned to favor in the straitened economic circumstances of the Migration Period,...
Isn't one of the advantages of segmentata supposed be a lower manufacturing cost than mail?
Offtopic: Personally I think I would go insane if I had punch and rivet mail for a living.
Pellinor
08-29-2003, 12:18
I think the key to the segmentata issue is that it was rather more capital-intensive to make than mail, which is more labour-intensive.
For mail, you need (broadly) a smelter making only small lumps of iron, a drawplate, and some hand tools. For segmentata, you need a much better smelter to get bigger lumps of iron, plus anvils, tools to cut the plates, manufacturers of hinges and other fittings, QA people to ensure standardisation of plate sizes, etc etc etc.
To me, the advantage of segmentata is simply that it is cheap if you mass-produce it; it has several disadvantages (note that officers and others who could afford to buy their own armour typically seem to use scale or mail, or exotic stuff like plumata or muscle cuirasses). Once that single advantage is gone, either because you can't afford or don't know how to set up the armouries or because you don't need the volume, there is no reason to use it.
DemonArchangel
08-30-2003, 01:16
I would wear a segmented muscle cuirass, and someone move this into the monastery
I would try to avoid being drafted altogether and we're staying put http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif Besides I think they're still waiting for some massive flame war to erupt.
Good point on the mail/segmentata production. I'm going to try and find the time to dl and read the rest of those articles this weekend. David Sims sounds familiar, has he done anything besides Britannia? A book maybe?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.