Somehowe to me an iron squamata would be the "coolest" looking one for a celtic auxilia, more then Brass or Thined...
But what about rust??? how much fuss would it be to keep it "clean" up to a level that does not make it look like the scrap heap of a ship yard...?
Not that I would order one the comming few years, I only would like to know all the options...
There are here and there iron scales amon the finds. They seem to have been tinned, usually. That´d solve your rust-problem.
Hm, I would want mine without the tinning... because I like the iron shine more than the tin shine...
You'd have to be a very rich warrior or chieftain to own any armour! You could buy a small village with a mail or scale shirt!! :wink:
Yeah I know, every roman citisen from the field, whom hardly know how to march straid, apears to be able to affort himself a segmentata, hamata, plumbata or what ever kind of lorica.
But a soon as when a Celt would want to where something more then is own skin,
the Romans start telling him he's not rich anough... :wink:
My question was about the problem of maintaining (not affording) an Iron squamata, without having it tinned..
I wonder why you would value your liking of the "shine " of steel higher than you would value authentic armour... :roll:
And why you would value the liking for such a look higher then the authentic one, when it even means you've a hell of a lot more cleaning to do (which on squamata isn't the most easy task)
Quote:I wonder why you would value your liking of the "shine " of steel higher than you would value authentic armour... :roll:
Yes that's a good question actualy...
So all evidens points at the iron scales being tined?
I think I would rather have a tinned one, even though I like the look of the brass/bronze scales, just for the very reason of ease of maintaining it....comparatively speaking.
Quote:You'd have to be a very rich warrior or chieftain to own any armour! You could buy a small village with a mail or scale shirt!! :wink:
Interesting .... is this conjecture or do you have a basis on which this hangs?
I'd never thought about the cost of a scale shirt before so would be interested to know if there are any records of this ... and of course how many cows/pigs/sheep/horses would be needed to equate to that price.
I don't think it would be wise to have an iron squamata without having it tinned, it is not just the outer surface that you have to worry about. Indeed it is the underside for this is the area of the scales you cannot get at to keep clean, when the rust begins to get bad this will affect the under garment and any stitching. I have made many squamata in my time and they have all been brass scales and it's very easy to keep this type clean with a foam emery buffing pad, one just has to wipe it in a downward direction or a sideways wipe and the last thing that should ever be used is metal polish.
Quote:Yeah I know, every roman citisen from the field, whom hardly know how to march straid, apears to be able to affort himself a segmentata, hamata, plumbata or what ever kind of lorica.
This may lead us off the original path, but after the Republic, the Roman soldier didn't have to pay for all his gear out of pocket. Things were provided from the armory, iirc, and he paid them back out of his pay. The non-Roman world had no comparison to that. The Roman government had access to whatever was available in the empire, including plenty of cheap labor, and an infrastructure that allowed for goods to be quickly and relatively easily shipped to the various fabricae and other armories/weaponsmiths.
Quote:But a soon as when a Celt would want to where something more then is own skin,
the Romans start telling him he's not rich anough...
The Roman soldiers from the fields, as you say, left their homes to a several month long "boot camp" like modern military forces, trained in the various skills and tasks of a soldier, and enlisted for 25 years or so. It wouldn't take long, or very many battles for the recruit to conduct himself as a professional soldier. The enemy forces, on the other hand, were straaight from farms and towns, and were generally not full-time warriors. Because of that, there would be no reason for a man to own the expensive swords, helmets and armor that might exist, but be out of his price range. Metal weapons and armor were extremely expensive in those days, sort of like buying all custom made gear these days for the "Celts", while the Romans had their versions of Deepeeka, DSC, etc. in the state-owned factories. Does that make sense? It's not a slam on any ancient culture, just the way things were.
Weren't these statements made for people outside (direct) service for Rome?
I totally agree with you when in comes to people in Roman service (including auxilia) but that doesn't tell us anything about those chieftains fighting Rome.
Quote:Weren't these statements made for people outside (direct) service for Rome?
I totally agree with you when in comes to people in Roman service (including auxilia) but that doesn't tell us anything about those chieftains fighting Rome.
I am sure that there was much variation in how different tribes were armed based on wealth, how often they fought with other tribes and warfare traditions. Also any recent victories would have changed armaments levels due to the availiblity of captured
armor and weapons. I would recommend any plain iron Squamata be ordered with tinned or forge blackened scale backs.
Edited by moderator due to violation of marketplace rules.
Quote:Weren't these statements made for people outside (direct) service for Rome?
I was just focussing on the statements in the quotes, really. The two cultures were very different, and the professional soldier was a Roman thing, while the "Celts" and other enemies for the most part were only soldiers when they needed to be. (Remember the scene in
300 in which Leonidas asks the accompanying Greeks what their professions were? It's that kind of a contrast, that's all.)