Chainmail + Breastplate combination?

[AqD]

Hi all!

Anyone know the source of this beautiful chainmail+breastplate armour in Hellenistic cataphracts and companions? I checked miniatures and paintings/photos from several books , including "The Seleucid Army 168-145BC" by Montvert, but failed to find any example....

Can someoneone point me the right direction??

[AqD]

hmmm 83 reads but nobody knows where it comes from?!

[Watchman]

...say, weren't sleeves a pretty darn LATE developement in mail ? IIRC what I've read of it, the Romans *still* hadn't quite figured out how to make the shoulder/armpit join in 1st century AD or thereabouts...

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

It shouldn't be THAT hard to make maille slevees eh? It was more a question of cost to protection, since more maille was expensive.

EDIT - Also, OP, don't use the term "chainmail". It's bad and ugly.

[Watchman]

The sleeve itself is just a tube, that wasn't the problem. The tricky bit was the join to the main body armour, especially on the armpit side, I understand. Not that early mail, be it Celtic or Roman or whatever, *entirely* lacks any kind of sleeve; IIRC even by first century AD they were still stuck with a "panel" that only covered the outer shoulder.

[The Persian Cataphract]

The depiction, though controversial and intensely debated within the team, is based on a Hellenistic figurine of an armoured soldier dressed as cavalry, carrying a muscled breastplate, to it attached long sleeves with a dotted texture extending to the wrists. I am currently unable to access my database as I am abroad (As we speak).

I am personally quite sceptical to this being chain-maille, and if it indeed does portray maille, it is a most unusual finding and would pose an anomaly as to why for instance Parthian cavalry was late in adopting it (Indeed, the likes of the late Prof. Shahbazi proposes that the edge of combat was favourable towards early Sassanian cavalry due to their adoption of maille, as opposed to earlier designs of lamellar). However, this refers to the time-span between 2nd-3rd centuries CE. It would be difficult to explain why this form of armour was "abandoned" and again "resumed".

At this time, the only form of complete protection available for horsemen would traditionally have been cheires/laminated hoops, as given by the relief of Pergamon, and/or chausses of scales or early lamellar of Scythian and Sacae types (Usually complemented by a long surcoat of large lamellae or banded/segmented armour with extended skirts); we may also include armoured saddles of late Achaemenid types such as the parameridia/parapleuridia.

[AqD]

The depiction, though controversial and intensely debated within the team, is based on a Hellenistic figurine of an armoured soldier dressed as cavalry, carrying a muscled breastplate, to it attached long sleeves with a dotted texture extending to the wrists. I am currently unable to access my database as I am abroad (As we speak).

But what else would it be, if not mail??

[MeinPanzer]

EDIT - Also, OP, don't use the term "chainmail". It's bad and ugly.

Nor should you use the term "maille," which is just as archaic and unnecessary as "chainmail." It's the norm for scholarly discussion of such armour to simply refer to it as mail.

The depiction, though controversial and intensely debated within the team, is based on a Hellenistic figurine of an armoured soldier dressed as cavalry, carrying a muscled breastplate, to it attached long sleeves with a dotted texture extending to the wrists. I am currently unable to access my database as I am abroad (As we speak).

I am personally quite sceptical to this being chain-maille, and if it indeed does portray maille, it is a most unusual finding and would pose an anomaly as to why for instance Parthian cavalry was late in adopting it (Indeed, the likes of the late Prof. Shahbazi proposes that the edge of combat was favourable towards early Sassanian cavalry due to their adoption of maille, as opposed to earlier designs of lamellar). However, this refers to the time-span between 2nd-3rd centuries CE. It would be difficult to explain why this form of armour was "abandoned" and again "resumed".

At this time, the only form of complete protection available for horsemen would traditionally have been cheires/laminated hoops, as given by the relief of Pergamon, and/or chausses of scales or early lamellar of Scythian and Sacae types (Usually complemented by a long surcoat of large lamellae or banded/segmented armour with extended skirts); we may also include armoured saddles of late Achaemenid types such as the parameridia/parapleuridia.

We've discussed this figurine before a while back. Here's the object in question:

http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.co...nafigurine.JPG

This is a rather unusual, and very interesting, figurine. This is a dedication dated to the late 4th or early 3rd c. BC from Dodona. It is believed that this is a (likely Epirote) general making a sacrifice, and that the object held in the right hand may be an organ of the sacrificial victim.

There are a few major problems with identifying this as mail.

Firstly, barring any historical discussion of mail, there is the basic problem if we take this to be mail of the fact that this figurine appears to be wearing nothing underneath his long-sleeved mail cuirass. This is simply not seen in ancient times. Warriors are always depicted either with a tunic longer than their mail cuirass or with trousers or something else covering their legs to prevent chafing.

Secondly, it doesn't make much sense for this guy to be wearing an organic cuirass over a long-sleeved mail one, and especially not one with pteruges.

Thirdly, if this were taken to be mail, this would be pretty much the earliest example of mail being worn anywhere outside of central Europe. The earliest eastern Celtic mail find, found in a burial from Horny Jatov in Slovakia, dates to the first quarter of the 3rd c. BC at the absolute earliest. This would mean that we would have to assume that mail somehow reached Epirus pretty much simultaneously with its earliest transmission to the eastern Celts.

But what else would it be, if not mail??

Well, we know that at the end of the 4th or the early 3rd c. BC it was fashionable among Macedonian noblemen to wear long-sleeved Persian-style tunics. We see this in numerous depictions of Macedonian cavalrymen from the time of Alexander and the Diadochoi. It is well-known that Epirus had close ties with Macedonia, so I don't think it's a stretch at all to think that the nobility of Epirus could have adopted Macedonian fashion. It seems very likely, therefore, that this is simply a tunic, and that the sculptor either wanted to convey its texture or its decoration with the spots.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Nor should you use the term "maille," which is just as archaic and unnecessary as "chainmail." It's the norm for scholarly discussion of such armour to simply refer to it as mail.

I prefer "maille" because it has an unambiguous meaning, contrary to "chain-mail" or merely "mail". In semantical terms, it means nothing but a fancy archaism, but one that works nevertheless and is not that hard to grasp.

[MeinPanzer]

I prefer "maille" because it has an unambiguous meaning, contrary to "chain-mail" or merely "mail". In semantical terms, it means nothing but a fancy archaism, but one that works nevertheless and is not that hard to grasp.

"Maille" is the French cognate for "mail," and was used in Middle English. It is not, however, a modern English word. Try searching the Oxford English Dictionary for "maille," for instance. There is no need for disambiguation with the word "mail," as "chain-mail" is a tautology (see the following link for a brief discussion: http://www.knightsofveritas.org/mate...ndringmail.pdf), and the sense of the word is clear when discussing armour.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Use of the term "chainmail" is still common though, and there is no reason to abandon it. Notwithstanding it being a tautology, it conveys the point well enough, and avoids confusion which has been perpetrated by all and sundry.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

"Chainmail" is widely used and also easy to grasp, but as experts will tell you it is still an incorrect term, which I think does not justify its use merely because it is widespread. "Mail" or "maille" are good enough.

[MeinPanzer]

Use of the term "chainmail" is still common though, and there is no reason to abandon it. Notwithstanding it being a tautology, it conveys the point well enough, and avoids confusion which has been perpetrated by all and sundry.

The point is not that most people still understand what you are talking about (the same can also be argued for "ringmail" or "chain armour" or "ring armour"), but that when you are discussing something in a scholarly context, you should strive for semantic clarity, especially when you are discussing something as nuanced as armour types. In this case, that is best achieved by "mail."

[Watchman]

Hmm. Leaving aside whether the statue actually depicts mail or not, I could see separate mail sleeves working; the longstanding technical problem was after all the join with the "byrnie" or "hauberk" (to use somewhat anachronistic terms) on the body, not that the armourers capable of constructing the large closed tube of mail that is a mail shirt or coat couldn't easily enough have made a long slim tube open at both ends for the arms. One would assume these would be fastened with an arrangement similar to that the Japanese much later used with their "armoured sleeves" (usually of ringmail, that is, chain affixed to organic backing), ie. tied together with laces crossing the upper chest and back under the body armour.

Hypothetical, obviously, but technically feasible AFAIK.

Presumably the "skirt" extending from below the pteruges is then either a separate "skirt" to help protect the groin and upper legs, or the lower edge of a long mail coat worn under the textile quirass - which should be a doable enough combination; for the sake of comparision, Medieval warriors often enough put an extra padded coat over their mail for extra body protection, or even an additional layer of metal armour (typically, a mail shirt or later a coat-of-plates)...
Heavy and expensive of course, but then I think we can safely assume that if the statue indeed depicts a man in that much armour he was someone not exactly destitute...
I would imagine that level of tårta på tårta ("cake on cake"), as the Swedish would say, armouring were rather uncommon though, already for reasons of cost and weight.

[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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The point is not that most people still understand what you are talking about (the same can also be argued for "ringmail" or "chain armour" or "ring armour"), but that when you are discussing something in a scholarly context, you should strive for semantic clarity, especially when you are discussing something as nuanced as armour types. In this case, that is best achieved by "mail."

Words are not fixed, the meaning of "mail" has changed because of what you see as missuse. If you say "mail" not everyone is entirely clear on what you mean. For those reasons we often refer to it just a "chain" today.

To be sure, if i was reffering to it in a paper I would use "mail" or perhaps even "mayle", but I'd also refer to a burh-geat, instead of a "Burgh Gate".

More on topic; If this is mail (or chain, or interlinked-rivited-closed-rings) then it would seem to be a full hauberk. In which case the thorax would seem to be leather or cloth. Not that heavy, but it doesn't solve the other problems you mentioned. One possible vector for the mail is via Celtic mercenaries, though.

[MeinPanzer]

Words are not fixed, the meaning of "mail" has changed because of what you see as missuse. If you say "mail" not everyone is entirely clear on what you mean. For those reasons we often refer to it just a "chain" today.

To be sure, if i was reffering to it in a paper I would use "mail" or perhaps even "mayle", but I'd also refer to a burh-geat, instead of a "Burgh Gate".

Obviously the meaning of words change, but in scholarly discussion (and that's all that I'm referring to - I don't think it really matters what words people use in everyday life to refer to particular kinds of armour) meaning can, and for the most part must, be fixed in order that authors may be able to discuss a topic in a mutually intelligible way. I'm not sure I understand your second point, nor have I ever heard mail referred to as "chain" in anything but slang.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Obviously the meaning of words change, but in scholarly discussion (and that's all that I'm referring to - I don't think it really matters what words people use in everyday life to refer to particular kinds of armour) meaning can, and for the most part must, be fixed in order that authors may be able to discuss a topic in a mutually intelligible way. I'm not sure I understand your second point, nor have I ever heard mail referred to as "chain" in anything but slang.

As far as terms go, try looking up "feudalism" among modern medievalists. I was merely making the point that there are several ways to refer to a particular item, in conversation. If I say "chainmail" you know exactly what I'm talking about.

My second point was that if the figure under discussion is wearing mail it does seem to be of the "coat" or haubrek design, rather than seperate attachments, with a fabric or leather thorax on top. This begs the question of why he doesn't seem to be wearing a padded under garment.

[MeinPanzer]

My second point was that if the figure under discussion is wearing mail it does seem to be of the "coat" or haubrek design, rather than seperate attachments, with a fabric or leather thorax on top. This begs the question of why he doesn't seem to be wearing a padded under garment.

If this is taken to be a hauberk, it would be our only evidence for such armour for centuries, and would also be one of the earliest representations of mail of any sort, meaning that they had somehow, very soon after inventing mail, learned how to make full hauberks, and then later either forgot how to do it or simply did not. It all seems very, very unlikely.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If this is taken to be a hauberk, it would be our only evidence for such armour for centuries, and would also be one of the earliest representations of mail of any sort, meaning that they had somehow, very soon after inventing mail, learned how to make full hauberks, and then later either forgot how to do it or simply did not. It all seems very, very unlikely.

Well, now we're reaching a different arguement. Given the fragmented nature of metalworking skills in antiquity, there's a reasonable possibility one smith did it one time and no one could copy it. Plutarch records that Demetrios had a unique piece of body armour, one of only two in existence. Not a reliable source, granted, but still indicative of the possibilty.

[Watchman]

This begs the question of why he doesn't seem to be wearing a padded under garment.

Far as I can tell the only thing that suggests he would't be is that there's no hem of such visible from under the edge of the "skirt" - there would seem to be no reason to assume he wouldn't have something under his sleeves, and indeed the thicker "cuffs" might arguably well be the "closure" of such; in which case the mail sleeves and their padding (probably not very thick) would presumably be made en suite and "permanently" attached.

And even the lack of padding showing from under the hem could be explained as said backing not necessarily being long enough to show; it would make very little difference on horseback due to the way the hem "spreads".

Though I'd rather assume that if he indeed wears mail sleeves and a long shirt, those are not in one piece but three separate bits; the sleeves would probably be attached similarly to the... whatchamacallthose shoulder-guard pteruges... pinions ? which IIRC aren't fixed to the cuirass either.

Or in any case that'd make more sense than an one-off full-sleeved hauberk.

[MeinPanzer]

Well, now we're reaching a different arguement. Given the fragmented nature of metalworking skills in antiquity, there's a reasonable possibility one smith did it one time and no one could copy it. Plutarch records that Demetrios had a unique piece of body armour, one of only two in existence. Not a reliable source, granted, but still indicative of the possibilty.

But Demetrius' cuirass was one of a very unique few because ironworking was just developing to a stage where such armours could be made (so, for instance, the iron cuirass from Vergina was a very rare and, undoubtedly, expensive luxury item in its owner's day). Soon after the time of the Diadochoi, iron body armour begins to appear more and more, as one would expect.

In this case, however, the mail cuirasses which we find later are both cruder and much slower in appearing. That's why this item being a mail cuirass is so unlikely (beyond any arguments about the figurine itself) - it is so out of place in the (otherwise coherent) grand scheme of the development and spread of mail throughout Europe that it would require a total rethinking of its spread.

Though I'd rather assume that if he indeed wears mail sleeves and a long shirt, those are not in one piece but three separate bits; the sleeves would probably be attached similarly to the... whatchamacallthose shoulder-guard pteruges... pinions ? which IIRC aren't fixed to the cuirass either.

Those shoulder pteruges don't really have a name that I'm aware of, but evidence points to them being fixed to the cuirass, as can be seen on trophies and weapons reliefs (with that from Pergamon being the best example).

[Watchman]

Huh. Pretty sure I've read the Romans at least fixed them on some kind... don't remember now actually... under the armour. Practical experiments apparently suggest fixing them to the body armour itself doesn't really work very well - the two need to be able to move relative to each other, or somesuch.
Though that may have been with mail; more solid stuff (like the tube-and-yoke organic cuirasses) might well provide a better "base"...

...should probably go and reread that text so I don't need to spam caveats...

[Prussian to the Iron]

examining the statue, it seems to me more like a scaled ceremonial dress/tunic (by 'dress' I of course mean formal wear), such as depicted in the Pahlava cavalry.

whether it is or isn't, I, who am only 14, can think of an easy way to use mail sleeves, so i don't know why the ancient romans -who had some of the greatest non-greek minds until the 1600's- had a problem with it.

the solution to sleeves: simply create the arm tubes, then attack them to the main body with flexible lace of some sort. like the same lace used to hold together ancient leather armor?

[MeinPanzer]

Huh. Pretty sure I've read the Romans at least fixed them on some kind... don't remember now actually... under the armour. Practical experiments apparently suggest fixing them to the body armour itself doesn't really work very well - the two need to be able to move relative to each other, or somesuch.
Though that may have been with mail; more solid stuff (like the tube-and-yoke organic cuirasses) might well provide a better "base"...

...should probably go and reread that text so I don't need to spam caveats...

In the Hellenistic world, all evidence points to the pteruges being an intrinsic part of the cuirass, whether it was organic or metal.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Huh. Pretty sure I've read the Romans at least fixed them on some kind... don't remember now actually... under the armour. Practical experiments apparently suggest fixing them to the body armour itself doesn't really work very well - the two need to be able to move relative to each other, or somesuch.
Though that may have been with mail; more solid stuff (like the tube-and-yoke organic cuirasses) might well provide a better "base"...

...should probably go and reread that text so I don't need to spam caveats...

Submallis, I may have put in too many "L"s.

Yes, though the under-garment is a matter of contention, whether or not legionaries always wore one is a particularly contentious question.

[Watchman]

In the Hellenistic world, all evidence points to the pteruges being an intrinsic part of the cuirass, whether it was organic or metal.

I'll give you the more "solid" base of the tube-and-yoke corselet and the bronze breastplate in all likelihood gives a rather better fit than the mail the Romans mostly played with.