Armor of the Divine Triad : lamellar armor

[Dan Howard]

I think that Bronze Age armour, Neo-Assyrian armour, the Mars of Todi armour, and the Divine Triad armour were all constructed in a very similar manner - all of which involve attaching the plates to a foundation of some sort. The Wisby plates, on the other hand were lamellar since the assembly of those plates don't require a foundation.

It isn't a closed book to me. All someone has to do is produce some plates from this period and show me how they can be laced together into an assembly that looks like the sculptures without fixing them to a backing. I'd love to see an earlier example of lamellar since I've been looking in vain for years.

[koechlyruestow]

Well, if it is plates that you want, look at any of the large size publications on Neo-Assyrian palace reliefs, for instance Barnett&Lorenzini's Assyrische Skulpturen, pl 65, 67, 81, 82, 142, 144, 152, 152, 153, 154, 155 and 156: they all show a row of lamellae, then a row of criss-cross hatching for the lacing, and then the next row of lamellae. If you do not have this book available, there are many others that show the same, from Sanherib onwards. But what you need are good representations of indivual lamellae.

[Theodosius the Great]

I have a question for Dan or Eduard.

Notice in the Divine Triad how the sashes at the waists of the warriors bends the armor?
Can lamellar plate armor bend that way? I know scale armor can do so especially since the fabric shirt can be tailored to take that shape.

~ Theo

[koechlyruestow]

Theo,

Good point. As I said, the armour is tailored. The knotted belts (of a type already seen in this area in the Achaemenid period) do not bent the armour, they rest snugly on the hips. The armour tapers towards the middle and then flares out like a coffee-filter, to give its user freedom of movement and enough room to sit on a horse (see the thread about Sarmatian armour). That is why the pteruges look so odd, they were hanging at an angle.

[Dan Howard]

Well, if it is plates that you want, look at any of the large size publications on Neo-Assyrian palace reliefs, for instance Barnett&Lorenzini's Assyrische Skulpturen, pl 65, 67, 81, 82, 142, 144, 152, 152, 153, 154, 155 and 156: they all show a row of lamellae, then a row of criss-cross hatching for the lacing, and then the next row of lamellae. If you do not have this book available, there are many others that show the same, from Sanherib onwards. But what you need are good representations of indivual lamellae.

These plates have to be laced to a backing. If you try any lacing arrangement for those hole patterns and not fix the assembly to a backing then the construction doesn't hold together.

[Dan Howard]

Perhaps we can approach it from another direction. Take a look at the shoulder doublings on the original image and other similar sculptures.

[attachment=6916]dieux-palmyreDivineTriad-zoom.jpg[/attachment]

There is a large hole in the shoulder flap for a tie to hold it in place on the breast. You can't put holes like this into a lamellar construction. It will destroy the integrity of the entire row unless they were fixed to a backing.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Wouldn't it still be Lamellar if it was on a backing?

[Dan Howard]

Depends. If the backing is required to maintain structural integrity then no, it is scale armour. Personally I'd be happy to get rid of the term "scale armour" entirely and subsume it into a sub-category of lamellar. Perhaps call it "backed lamellar" or "reinforced lamellar". It doesn't really matter so long as there is a consistent terminology that everyone agrees on. If everyone makes up their own definitions then the terms are meaningless.

[daryush]

I have a feeling that this is two-hole lamellar, such as that found at Old Nisa (3rd - 2nd C BC) and Toglok Tappeh (6th - 7th C AD). I have reconstructed a cuirass based on those finds, and I don't think such lamellar was able to taper at the waist - likely it is artistic depiction. It is quite easy to lace this system without any sort of backing.

The only way, in my experience, to get lamellar to taper at the waist is to make hanging lamellar, where there is some slack in the vertical lacing. My main Sasanian cuirass is built with hanging lamellar (using an 8-hole plate, such as those depicted on Taq-e-Bostan and found at Kobadian) and it is possible to get the tailored profile with that.

Of course, nothing to say that the warriors couldn't have used lamellae of differing sizes and shapes around the waist to achieve that shape ... but it seems like a lot of hassle for not that much benefit.

You can put large holes for fastenings in two-hole lamellar (speaking from experience), as the lacing is only at the ends of each lamella, so a hole anywhere in the middle of the lamella doesn't interrupt the lacing.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Fascinating depiction!

Is it really First Century? Do the sword pommels at least not suggest later?

Indded, as John says tri-lobates were Republican features.

[Jori]

Ok, this is an oriental armor. Used at least in the eastern part of the empire. Known by Romans, maybe used by them.

We found at Carnuntum some plates that could have been used for a lamellar armor (or locked scale, I don't understand quite well the difference for now).



But this image doesn't explain how to realize the leather between two rows of scales. I suggest that maybe the leather was put in between scales, for protection against the bronze wire benting?

In the follow image of a central asian armor, we can see the lacing, ressembling that of the palmyrenean deities. I need to find a scale that complies with the leather lacing and the bronze wire.



Or am I completely wrong?

Maybe, as a Roman reenactor, I shouldn't even try to wear such an armor? But how do you explain scales of Carnuntum with holes on top and on bottom?

[koechlyruestow]

Daryush wrote:

I have a feeling that this is two-hole lamellar, such as that found at Old Nisa (3rd - 2nd C BC) and Toglok Tappeh (6th - 7th C AD).

I disagree, those are the Central Asian types of lamellar, while the lamelar shown on the triad is of the ancient Middle Eastern type. Look at the site michael-engel.io.ua/album329328_0 that Dan was kind enough to show us, on page 273-5, where you can see what this type of lamellar looked like.
If you read the accompanying story, you will find out that lamellar armour in the Middle East dates back to the bronze age, which made Bengt Thordemann believe lamellar armour originated in Iran, just like Berthold Laufer and others at the time. That idea is now largely discarded, but that there was a separate development of lamellar armour in the Levant is now accepted, whatever Dan might be saying.

Dan Howard wrote:

There is a large hole in the shoulder flap for a tie to hold it in place on the breast.

It is unclear to me why this is seen by you as a hole in the shoulder flap, while it is much more likely to be an attachment on top of the lamellar construction, just as it is in all Greek and a lot of Roman armour.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Ok, this is an oriental armor. Used at least in the eastern part of the empire. Known by Romans, maybe used by them.

We found at Carnuntum some plates that could have been used for a lamellar armor (or locked scale, I don't understand quite well the difference for now).



But this image doesn't explain how to realize the leather between two rows of scales. I suggest that maybe the leather was put in between scales, for protection against the bronze wire benting?

In the follow image of a central asian armor, we can see the lacing, ressembling that of the palmyrenean deities. I need to find a scale that complies with the leather lacing and the bronze wire.



Or am I completely wrong?

Maybe, as a Roman reenactor, I shouldn't even try to wear such an armor? But how do you explain scales of Carnuntum with holes on top and on bottom?

What era was it found in? Could have been Sarmatian/Hunnic

[Dan Howard]

You can put large holes for fastenings in two-hole lamellar (speaking from experience), as the lacing is only at the ends of each lamella, so a hole anywhere in the middle of the lamella doesn't interrupt the lacing.

The hole isn't in the middle. It is through the ends of two adjacent rows.

[Jori]

Flavius Aetius > XVII century, it's Tibetan. I put it there only for purposes of illustrating the lacing.

http://www.hellenicarmors.gr/gallery.php?story=15

this guy, who wrote for AW, is quite good I think. But it's not lamellar. It shows for me the way of lacing the shoulders to the body armor.