+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Padded Armour (/showthread.php?tid=3698)
Re: Padded Armour - Tarbicus - 03-05-2006
Quote:Are we making the design too complicated in making it from one piece?
That's a good point Caballo. I had an idea that the thoroughly conjectural extra layer for shoulders and chest, with short pteryges attached, could be another garment worn over the main subarmalis.
However, I think Travis' original dimensions for the main one-piece subarmalis are feasable for linen, as I have a piece here in my house that is suitable, and all in all it's not that big, and way slimmer than a wool tunic measuring roughly wrist to wrist.
Re: Padded Armour - tlclark - 03-05-2006
Quote:I completly agree with that Paul. It is what I was also trying to show in my section drawing further up the thread (P13)- that some of the layers can be seperate and stitched together- especially around the pteruges, and even if you use travis's linen/felt/linen core/felt/linen idea, there is not nessessarily and need for all the layers (i.e linen core) to run up into the main body, some could stop at a seam above the waist where the pteruges start. Just leaving multiple layers of felt encased in linen outers.
Good point! and it would solve a lot of the problems that Aitor and I have have about so many layers. The trick is trying to think like a Roman. What woudl they do? Sometimes they value simplicity for the sake of it, sometimes they did things inexplicately complicated.
patterning the subarmalis after the linothorax is way to do this.
Quote:I'm also not fully convinced of any material for musculata other that cupric-alloys, but there are some very well put arguments out there and I'm fascinated by the debate and am willing to alter my viewpoint with the evidenc epresented! Great stuff guys
Check out the Leather armor thread.
Travis
Re: Padded Armour - Tarbicus - 03-05-2006
Quote:The trick is trying to think like a Roman. What woudl they do? Sometimes they value simplicity for the sake of it, sometimes they did things inexplicately complicated.Don't forget there was a time their cavalry were bare at the midriff. Perhaps we're trying to build tanks where only jeeps existed? Perhaps the subarmalis was only a simple garment to protect the tunic from the armour, and the pteryges are purely decorative, just like the cingulum's apron?
"Virtus"; it's latin for "hard as nails". :wink:
Re: Padded Armour - Crispvs - 03-09-2006
Tarbicus,
"I had an idea that the thoroughly conjectural extra layer for shoulders and chest, with short pteryges attached, could be another garment worn over the main subarmalis."
I have been using a thick piece of leather with heavily padded shoulders in this way for a couple of years. The main problem with it is that it tends to shift around while the armour is being donned and often has to be hauled (not necessarily successfully) back into position one the armour is on. This was the thing which spurred me on to start making a full torso linen and wool subarmalis over the off season. I was about half finished when this thread really took off and I decided to stop work and see what might be come up on RAT before continuing.
"Perhaps the subarmalis was only a simple garment to protect the tunic from the armour, and the pteryges are purely decorative, just like the cingulum's apron?"
I have often had that feeling about the pteruges themselves, particularly on later monuments, but I cannot believe that the subarmalis only existed to protect the tunic from the armour. It is true that the Romans do not seem to have worn a subarmalis in the days of the pectoral plate, but the move to mail indicates a desire for greater protection. Given that mail gives very little protection on its own from the concussive effects of a blow I see little point in Roman soldiers (and later the army) going to the expence of buying mail if the extra coverage it provided did not equal extra protection from concussive blows. I have always maintained, and still maintain, that to be useful as armour, mail must be padded.
Crispvs
Re: Padded Armour - tlclark - 03-10-2006
Quote: I have been using a thick piece of leather with heavily padded shoulders in this way for a couple of years. The main problem with it is that it tends to shift around while the armour is being donned and often has to be hauled (not necessarily successfully) back into position one the armour is on. This was the thing which spurred me on to start making a full torso linen and wool subarmalis over the off season. I was about half finished when this thread really took off and I decided to stop work and see what might be come up on RAT before continuing.
I find myself in the same position, every time I get close to cutting, something else comes up on this thread!
Well thanks for the info about the shoulder piece. I am thinking that although I like the wild patterns Tarbicus has been creating, I am trying to figure out how to simplify things.
Travis
Re: Padded Armour - Dan Howard - 03-10-2006
Wandering off on a tangent here but how do we know that mail was worn over a subarmalis? Suppose the border that is evident on hamata was actually a mechanism for fixing a padded liner to the mail?
Regarding the necessity of wearing mail with padding, this thread is relevant.
http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/ ... hp?t=52881
Re: Padded Armour - tlclark - 03-10-2006
Quote:Wandering off on a tangent here but how do we know that mail was worn over a subarmalis? Suppose the border that is evident on hamata was actually a mechanism for fixing a padded liner to the mail?
Regarding the necessity of wearing mail with padding, this thread is relevant.
http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/ ... hp?t=52881
Thanks Dan!
This might make sense for the musculata as well. When we see the musculata separately in trophies, the pteruges are always attached, which indicates that maybe the whole armor and padding were integrated into one whole.
I am beginning to lean to this idea because the more I look at the statues, it seems the musculata fits very closely, indicating the subarmalis must be very tightly fitted or integral to the cuirass.
Travis
Re: Padded Armour - John M McDermott - 03-10-2006
The evidence that a subarmalis was worn under mail is anecdotal. There is pottery, an example of which is published in Peter Connolly's book, where an Etruscan warrior wears a quilted subarmalis in conjunction with scale armor. Medieval warriors definitely wore mail over a gambeson. Somewhere on the RAT is an excellent quote from an Arab historian sadly commenting on the impenetrability of Crusader mail + gambeson.
The other proof is our own experience. Mail worn by itself is uncomfortable and even dangerous. Sometimes, you just have to ask yourself the question: Will this work?
Re: Padded Armour - Dan Howard - 03-10-2006
Quote:The evidence that a subarmalis was worn under mail is anecdotal. There is pottery, an example of which is published in Peter Connolly's book, where an Etruscan warrior wears a quilted subarmalis in conjunction with scale armor. Medieval warriors definitely wore mail over a gambeson. Somewhere on the RAT is an excellent quote from an Arab historian sadly commenting on the impenetrability of Crusader mail + gambeson.Actually there isn't all that much evidence for medieval mail being worn over padding. There is nothing at all before the end of the 12th century and several sources suggest padding was not worn. The Middle Eastern quote you mention suggests that felt was worn over the top of mail during that encounter as an additional defense against Saracen arrows - though it is ambiguous.
Re: Padded Armour - John M McDermott - 03-11-2006
Here is the quote:
"Their infantry drawn up in front of the horsemen stood as firm as a wall, and every soldier had a thick gambeson and mail hauberks so thick and strong that our arrows had no effect.I saw soldiers with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, still trudging on in their ranks." - Beha Ad-Din, the life of Saladin.
Re: Padded Armour - Dan Howard - 03-11-2006
I already mentioned in a previous thread that this isn't the best translation. Replace "thick gambeson" with "vest of thick felt." It is unclear whether the vest was worn underneath or over the top as an additional layer of protection (though since it was visible, it is more likely that it was over the top). It is also unclear whether this was a regular occurrence or whether it was an innovation specifically limited to this campaign.
Full citation: Bahā’al-Dīn, "The Life of Saladin", (Ch. CXVII), What Befell Sultan Yusuf, by Abu el-Mehasan Yusef ibn-Rafi ibn-Temun el-Asadi.
Re: Padded Armour - Tarbicus - 03-11-2006
Quote: (though since it was visible, it is more likely that it was over the top)No doubt the tale was written after the battle, in which case enemy dead would surely have been examined to see how come they withstood the arrows so well. I don't see the narrator necessarily meaning the gambesson was on the outside.
Re: Padded Armour - Dan Howard - 03-11-2006
Agreed. So at best we have an ambiguous text. A common combination in the 14th century was to wear padded jacks over mail to better protect troops from crossbows and English longbows. IMO wearing felt over mail is a valid combination and would greatly increase resistance to arrows. Bodkins, in particular seem to bounce off layered textiles and felt while broadheads are more likely to cut through. However mail is better able to resist broadheads than bodkins - so combining the two offers the best of both worlds.
Re: Padded Armour - John M McDermott - 03-13-2006
There are no representations of Romans wearing a subarmalis over anything. It would be great if there were, so we would know what they looked like. Gambesons existed in Medieval times (or do you argue they didn't?) and there is at least one representation from around 200 BC of a subarmalis used in conjunction with scale. If Romans were using subarmalii, then it was under the armor.
I still think the best evidence is our own experience. Mail by itself just doesn't work.
Re: Padded Armour - Dan Howard - 03-14-2006
A "gambeson" is a standalone armour. It wasn't worn under armour. "Aketons" and "pourpoints" were worn under armour but there is a lot of argument on how early they appear. Until today I though the earliest mention was by Gerald of Wales but I've had someone tell me that a correct translation does not mention padding under mail at all. The phrase panno loricae does not refer to cloth armour but rather describes the "mail mesh" or "mail fabric". Here is the complete passage if someone here would attempt a translation.
Accidit et tempore Guillelmi de Breusa, ipso testante, quemdam militem suum, in conflictu contra (Gualenses?), a quodam ipsorum per mediam coxam, cum panno loricae ac ocreali ferro utrinque vestitam, sagitta percussum esse; eadem quoque sagitta per partem illam sellae, quae Alva vocatur, usque in ipsum equuum letaliter transpenetrante. Alia quoque sagitta militis alterius coxam, ferro similiter utrinque munitam cum panno loricae, usque in sellam perforavit. Et cum miles ille loris equum in gyrum flecteret, alia sagitta, eodem contorquente, in opposita coxa similem fetum suscepit, equo ab utraque parte firmiter affixus.
Regarding the wearing of something under mail, I agree that mail is ineffective and uncomfortable without some padding, but why would simple woollen clothing not be suitable? Regarding lorica hamata, is it possible that the leather border is a mechanism for attaching a padded liner to the inside? i.e. could the padding be integral rather than a separate garment?