Chainmail + Breastplate combination?

[The Persian Cataphract]

Unfortunately, as far as the terminology is concerned we have seen popular errors such as scale-mail and scale-maille applied in many academical texts and has proved itself to be quite persistent, and continues to see wide usage even today. Not to mention countless examples present in popular culture, including video and computer games. Chain-maille may be a tautology, but in background to how the word "mail" and "maille" have been applied as suffixes to various forms of armour, it does in a sense clarify the chief characteristics; what do call composite armour types such as the lorica plumata? Technically it is just a lorica hamata with scales superimposed on the rings. Is this maille? Can it be called maille? Should it be called maille? How about just calling it lorica plumata?

Idealistically, due to so many differences between produce, manufacture, ring size, layer thickness, material and so forth, it seems that only regional designations could provide the accuracy in order to minimize ambiguities between blanket terms. The problem? I'm not sure everyone here knows what a "zîrîh" is, or what a "jâwshân", or what a "grîwbân" is without knowing late Middle-Persian/Bal'ami Persian. We could say Eastern "arming cap" but are we referring to a Kyrbasia, a soft Phrygian cap or a nomadic-style Bashlyk? To the casual reader knowing the specifics is trivial.

In scholarly context, it is to the contrary; the issue of using the correct terminology is usually dependent on using an available nomenclature. A scholar writing about a classical era hoplite's paraphernalia would likely use native terms; knemideis, as opposed to greaves; aspis, as opposed to a large, round shield with a bronze or brazen facing, and so forth. The cornucopia in later Graeco-Roman legend carries a greater implied meaning to it as opposed to "harvest cone".

[MeinPanzer]

Unfortunately, as far as the terminology is concerned we have seen popular errors such as scale-mail and scale-maille applied in many academical texts and has proved itself to be quite persistent, and continues to see wide usage even today. Not to mention countless examples present in popular culture, including video and computer games. Chain-maille may be a tautology, but in background to how the word "mail" and "maille" have been applied as suffixes to various forms of armour, it does in a sense clarify the chief characteristics; what do call composite armour types such as the lorica plumata? Technically it is just a lorica hamata with scales superimposed on the rings. Is this maille? Can it be called maille? Should it be called maille? How about just calling it lorica plumata?

If you wanted to define lorica plumata, you could just say that it is a composite armour of mail and scale. Simple as that.

Idealistically, due to so many differences between produce, manufacture, ring size, layer thickness, material and so forth, it seems that only regional designations could provide the accuracy in order to minimize ambiguities between blanket terms. The problem? I'm not sure everyone here knows what a "zîrîh" is, or what a "jâwshân", or what a "grîwbân" is without knowing late Middle-Persian/Bal'ami Persian. We could say Eastern "arming cap" but are we referring to a Kyrbasia, a soft Phrygian cap or a nomadic-style Bashlyk? To the casual reader knowing the specifics is trivial.

Anything that generally involves rings being joined together to form armour is mail, and nothing that I've seen from the ancient or early medieval times beyond perhaps armour like the Chinese mountain pattern armour is unusual enough to warrant a new term.

In scholarly context, it is to the contrary; the issue of using the correct terminology is usually dependent on using an available nomenclature. A scholar writing about a classical era hoplite's paraphernalia would likely use native terms; knemideis, as opposed to greaves; aspis, as opposed to a large, round shield with a bronze or brazen facing, and so forth. The cornucopia in later Graeco-Roman legend carries a greater implied meaning to it as opposed to "harvest cone".

This brings in a new issue, which is of matching modern terms to ancient ones, or of translating specific ancient terms. I think that generally there is no need to use an ancient term when a modern term suffices; so, using your example, it would be pointless to refer to Greek greaves as knemides, because when discussing Greek warfare, what's being referred to is clear. However, when it comes down to a topic like shield types, it is then necessary to refer to ancient terms, because English does not have words that can clearly convey the same meaning as terms like thureos or pelte.