+- 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: Does Lorica hamata exist in the sources? (/showthread.php?tid=2183)
Does Lorica hamata exist in the sources? - Anonymous - 03-12-2004
Many authors says that expression <em>lorica hamata</em> was the name of mail, which had been used by Romans. I couldn't found it in the sources. Can anybody help me? <p></p><i></i>
Re: Does Lorica hamata exist in the sources? - mcbishop - 03-12-2004
Yes:<br>
<br>
speedbible.com/vulgate/B09C017.htm#V5<br>
<br>
Its form is described even earlier, by Varro:<br>
<br>
www.thelatinlibrary.com/varro.ll5.html - either search for 'lorica' or scroll down to XXIV.<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>
Re: Does Lorica hamata exist in the sources? - Anonymous - 03-13-2004
I know both this texts, but thank you very much for help. Varro hadn't used expression "hamata". That latin vulgata isn't trustworthy source in subject of Roman armours, because text could bear medieval changes...what do you think about it? Thanks again <p></p><i></i>
Re: Does Lorica hamata exist in the sources? - mcbishop - 03-13-2004
<em>I know both this texts, but thank you very much for help. Varro hadn't used expression "hamata". That latin vulgata isn't trustworthy source in subject of Roman armours, because text could bear medieval changes...what do you think about it?</em><br>
<br>
No offence, but if you <em>knew</em> of both these texts, why not preface your question by saying so? I also did not say that Varro used the term hamata; I said he described that form of armour (which the quote demonstrated). You probably don't intend it, but your reponse can be read as a put-down and that is not the best way to encourage people to help you in the future. Precise and helpful questions tend to lead to precise and helpful answers.<br>
<br>
Just out of interest... what <em>is</em> a 'trustworthy source' on Roman armour - Tacitus? Velleius Paterclus!?! the SHA? ;-)<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>
Re: Does Lorica hamata exist in the sources? - Anonymous - 03-14-2004
<em>You probably don't intend it, but your response can be read as a put-down and that is not the best way to encourage people to help you in the future. Precise and helpful questions tend to lead to precise and helpful answers.</em><br>
<br>
Excuse me please, i didn't want to be unpleasant.(sometimes it's difficulty to say sth in foreign language )<br>
<br>
<em>No offence, but if you knew of both these texts, why not preface your question by saying so? I also did not say that Varro used the term hamata; I said he described that form of armour (which the quote demonstrated).</em><br>
<br>
Your right Mr. Bishop . I was looking for expression "lorica hamata" by "Muzajos", Special Latin Dictionaries, encyclopedias and by reading sources. Only Muzajos was helpfully, it found that Latin Vulgata text (the same as from upper link).<br>
I was wonder if I had missed sth. I though that expression "hamata", appears in Livius, Varro, Tacitus, Vegetius etc. Do you think expression "lorica hamata" only in Vulgata it's enough evidence to proof for us to tell that Romans use this words as mail's name? (You Mr Bishop are authority in subject of roman equipment, so your opinion will be very important. I'm during writing article for Military Conference. Subject of article: Lorica Hamata and it place in Roman army (From IV century To Traian).)<br>
PS. Please excuse me my pour English, i don't wont to be rude again <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=peterfrompoland>PeterfromPoland</A> at: 3/14/04 9:22 pm<br></i>
RE: Does Lorica hamata exist in the sources? - Robert Vermaat - 11-15-2015
(03-12-2004, 07:31 PM)mcbishop Wrote: Yes:
speedbible.com/vulgate/B09C017.htm#V5<br>
Its form is described even earlier, by Varro:<br>
www.thelatinlibrary.com/varro.ll5.html - either search for 'lorica' or scroll down to XXIV.<br>
Mike Bishop
Sorry to revive such an old thread from the dead.
However, the Vulgate source has been called into question by Raffaele D'Amato, whose version of I samual 17.5 apparently does not read:
et cassis aerea super caput eius et lorica hamata induebatur porro pondus
but
et cassis aerea super caput eius et lorica squamata induebatur porro pondus
Can anyone with a proper knowledge of Jerome's Vulgata shed light on this? Is hamat indeed from a more modern version? I see both versions all over the internet but I can't seem to find an internet version of any old MSS.
Meanwhile D'Amato calls hamata a modern word.
RE: Does Lorica hamata exist in the sources? - Dan Howard - 11-15-2015
I can't comment on the modernity of our version of Jerome's Vulgata but, even if it is the original version, the 5th century is a very late source. I agree that the Romans don't seem to have used the phrase lorica hamata in the previous six-seven centuries that this armour was in use. During those centuries, only the Greek writers seem to distinguish which armour type they are talking about by using halusidôton. I don't think we have much of a clue what Latin speakers in the Republic or early Imperial period would have called mail armour. We have Virgil's Aeneid (1st century BC), which describes mail rings being linked or hooked (hamis) together but not much else.
RE: Does Lorica hamata exist in the sources? - Robert Vermaat - 11-15-2015
Any expert on the Vulgata?