+- 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: Lorica Hamata-just how good was it? (/showthread.php?tid=4226)
Lorica Hamata-just how good was it? - arklore70 - 11-26-2005
Ladies and Gents,
just how good/protective was the Lorica Hamata say compared to a Lorica Segmentata? I have seen some debate recently, but I am curious if any studies have been done.
Just what type of punishment was the Hamata designed to protect a man from with a padded subarmlis and doubler.
I have not seen previous postings on this subject. If my bleary eyes missed it, can someone be kind enough to direct me there.
I am also strongly considering purchasing a Lorica Hamata for another impression. Any feedback on suppliers and what to look for and what to avoid would be welcome.
Cheers!!
v/r
Mike
Re: Lorica Hamata-just how good was it? - Cobra - 11-26-2005
I myself have taken a few cuts (with a variety of weapons) at a chainmaille covered pig leg for the sake of study.Chain-maille is known to and does resist cuts extremely well but with very strong cuts or heavy blows from axes and the like, the chain-maille will break and unless you're got some good padding (even with padding sometimes) you're likely to be toast . Thrusts are also very well absorbed unless you have a strongly tapering point on your sword and actually, a very heavy thrust from a polearm of somesort will penerate. Haven't tried arrows but logically, since they "mimic" a thrust, a strongly tapering arrowpoint would penerate it (such as the medieval English bodkin arrow, which is exactly what its purpose was for). So what does that all mean? Yes, the hamata would be excellent choice for protection because it will protect you from a majority of injuries but not all of them or to the same extent that a segmenta might.
The segmenta, because of its plate-like construction, will absorb and disperse the effect of the blow over a wider area and not just on the rings themselves like the hamata. I have not done cuts on a segmenta but I have done cuts on 15th century styled plate armor and lamellar armor. Cuts and thrusts simply can't bite into a plate of metal and thus just end up crushing on the surface and end up being absorbed or skip off. This doesn't mean you're invincible, heavy weapons such as axes and maces and pikes will ruin your day even in a segmenta because they simply crush it, resulting in injury due to blunt trauma and whatever else that gets crushed underneath them. Arrows, javelins, bolts...not as sure about but seeing as how later medieval plate was so effective against missiles, it might be alright to conclude the segmenta would be similar. I haven't tried any ballistic tests with plate or the segmenta but I have seen footage on a documentary on History Channel once of somekind of arrow (I think it was a ballista/scorpion bolt actually) fired at a segmenta and the arrow smashed into the armor, bouncing off, leaving only a dent in the plate it struck. I think that speaks for itself. It looked like one of those classic British Royal Armouries tests, they do alot of ballistic and punishment tests with ancient armour and weapons.
Re: Lorica Hamata-just how good was it? - arklore70 - 11-26-2005
Thank you for your well thought out and written reply, very informative.
A second question now enters my mind, which is easier to maintain and also to travel with.. I tend to travel and move every so many years do to my occupation.
thanks once again
Mike
Re: Lorica Hamata-just how good was it? - John M McDermott - 11-26-2005
Most efforts at hamata reconstruction are primitive and mail is badly understood. Check this post out for a better understanding of how accurate mail was constructed. Also, all the tests I know of use badly constructed mail with with no subarmalis.
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=5504
Re: Lorica Hamata-just how good was it? - andym - 11-26-2005
I would go with the segmentata over the mail lorica.Firstly mail is incredibly heavy and a swine to keep clean.It also is hard to repair (unless youre able to do it right)and keep it looking good.On the plus it does take up less space than the segmentata.Youl will need a well padded "jerkin" as well to wear underneath the mail to spread the impact of blows,these can be extremly hot in warmer climates.Not to mention a bit of a job to make properly.with the segmentata not too much can go wrong with it and its easier to repair then the mail.
Re: Lorica Hamata-just how good was it? - arklore70 - 11-26-2005
Folks, thanks for all your help and assistance on this subject. A wealth of knowledge has been given to me here.
One of these days I hope to be able to get smart enough on things Roman and contribute more to the page, instead of being a hungry information hound.
Cheers!!
Mike
Re: Lorica Hamata-just how good was it? - Dan Howard - 11-26-2005
Quote:Most efforts at hamata reconstruction are primitive and mail is badly understood.
Exactly. There is no point chopping up or stabbing pieces of mail unless it actually represents what was worn "in period". Erik's is the only replica I've seen that is even close. Performing tests on butted mail or some cheap imported Indian riveted mail is a waste of time.
Re: Lorica Hamata-just how good was it? - Felix - 11-26-2005
As to the question of mail suppliers, the first and most important point is that butted mail is not Roman. In fact, it was not used to a significant degree in Europe. Ever. Butted mail is easier to make, and SCA and re-enactor types using this tend to make the rings thicker, to compensate for the lack of closure of the rings. This results in a garment which is noticeably heavier than period.
You would be looking for mail which is alternate solid (punched or welded) rings and rivetted rings, I believe. All-rivetted mail was common in the later Middle Ages, but not in lorica hamata (to the best of my knowledge). In the US, two suppliers of reasonably priced rivetted mail are http://www.forth-armoury.com/ (when he has it in stock) and http://historicenterprises.com/ . Neither one does a garment exactly like a lorica hamata, but a shorter length haubergeon with short sleeves is a place to start; and they might be willing to do some alterations. Erik Schmidt is the doyen of mail-makers; but his price and waiting list are both substantial.
Re: Lorica Hamata-just how good was it? - Dan Howard - 11-26-2005
Quote:since they "mimic" a thrust, a strongly tapering arrowpoint would penerate it (such as the medieval English bodkin arrow, which is exactly what its purpose was for).
Actually I can put together a very strong case that the bodkin was NOT developed to penetrate armour. Much of the evidence suggests that it was intended to be used on flight arrows, not armour-piercers.
Re: Lorica Hamata-just how good was it? - Caballo - 11-26-2005
"Also, all the tests I know of use badly constructed mail with with no subarmalis. "
It strikes me that this is one of the areas that virtually all groups act inauthentically- even the Guard! A hamata without a subarmalis does not make sense in a combat situation, given the need for padding to avoid blunt trauma.
Cheers
Britannicus
Re: Lorica Hamata-just how good was it? - arklore70 - 11-27-2005
Completely agree with you. Would be like wearing a modern day advanced combat helmet or ballistic helmet with no padding or suspension band with drawstring and adjustable tab and headband.
Well I promise when I win the lottery. I will but a hamata with a subarmlis and use it for ballistic studies as well as other comabt tests
Cheers!!
Mike
Re: Lorica Hamata-just how good was it? - Caballo - 11-27-2005
"Also, all the tests I know of use badly constructed mail with with no subarmalis. "
It strikes me that this is one of the areas that virtually all groups act inauthentically- even the Guard! A hamata without a subarmalis does not make sense in a combat situation, given the need for padding to avoid blunt trauma.
Cheers
Britannicus
Re: Lorica Hamata-just how good was it? - A_Volpe - 11-27-2005
Yeah it's tricky because getting someONE to make real, riveted (and stamped) Hammata with good accurate Doubling is going to be painfully expensive and slow...We don't have the benefit of slave-labor Fabricae anymore to make this stuff..."Cheap"..And in huge numbers.
I suppose one could purchase the butted maille that is available readily, and then just have to flatten and rivet each ring (At least then you wouldn't have to form and anneal the rings?..And you'd have to remove any kind of galvanization if they have it)
Also, what we know about ancient armor is really what we know about Medieval-Renaissance armor, which is Steel, not always Iron. The Romans of course only really had Iron to work with, at least in terms of armor. And in a wierd twist of irony(pun intended), iron today is harder to obtain cheaply than is steel, as far as I know it.
But, keep in mind Hammata/Maille armor had been in use for nearly 2,000 years, so apparently it was good for something. Maille is great for glancing hits, slashes, and thrusts. Although it's Not good for heavy stabbing/smashing/slashing. But, would you rather walk home with some bruised ribs and a cracked clavical or with a severed limb or your belly hacked into?
Seggie armor will undoubtably provide better protection up to a point. If it's true that Seggie armor was mass-manufactured, was it's quality less than stellar? Did the iron plates suffer inherent cracks and failure, much like later Renaissance "Munitions Grade" armor? Even with the Steel full plate harness of the late 1400's and into 1500's, you can still suffer a terrific puncture wound being up against, say, a Halberd's spear thrust, or a Roundel dagger, or a Bec de Corbin, esspecially if you properly target the limbs or articulation (rather than the cuirass), but then are you trying to damage the armor to restrict movement, or are you looking to go through and hit flesh? (and at that point, why bother with a bow or crossbow...Grab a handgun and kablooey)
Also, Seggie armor looks like it's designed to "break apart" to disperse the impact, not unlike an Indy car or an F1 Racer when it hits the wall, if you look at the way it overlaps, it appears it is constructed to disperse the force along a particular section.
Hopefully there are some people who'll be doing "live fire" testing of weapons on authentically constructed armor with authentic materials, and not using the steel reconstructions most of us have now.
But anyway to get back to the original question.
I find just as much maintenance goes into Maille as it does Seggie armor. Seggie is easier to clean, though. As easily transportable as Maille is, you still have to consider the helmet, sword, belt, dagger, shield and pilum. Seggie armor can be collapsed fairly well, if you can undo the major assemblies and collapse them into each side, although I personally keep the armor put together and half-collapse it into a large Tupperware tub with the helmet "inside" the armor and the gladius diagonally across ontop of the armor, with all the other bits thrown in around or inside the armor...And has been said, Maille is heavier than plate/seggie armor.
There's also Scale/Squamata armor if you're looking for a hands-on project
Re: Lorica Hamata-just how good was it? - Crispvs - 11-27-2005
"Hopefully there are some people who'll be doing "live fire" testing of weapons on authentically constructed armor with authentic materials, and not using the steel reconstructions most of us have now."
When you say 'steel', I am not sure what grade of steel you are referring to, but in my group we use mild steel as it is the closest material to iron which is readily available.
About eight years ago, when conducting trials with our artillery (which can be read about in JRMES 11 [2000]) we shot a 70g bolt with a mild steel head from a keirobalistra, over distance of 50 metres, at a mild steel segmentata which was supported on a padded wooden frame which was designed to mimick the bulk and resistance of a human body. The segmentata plates were 1.25mm thick. The unhardened bolthead penetrated the girdle plate it struck and almost punched through the plate that plate was overlapping. The armour was thus not fully penetrated but the plates which were struck were severely dented in such a way that the force of the blow would have carried on through the body of a real human and caused massive internal injuries. Bolts from both the trispithimus and keirobalistra punched holes in a large sheet of 2mm thick sheet mild steel.
A point which might also be made is that the Romans were quite capable of case hardening iron into steel. It would be possible to case harden segmentata plates and as Roman smiths would have been quite capable of this, many segmentatas could have been case hardened. At the Carlisle conference last year David Simm described a squamata scale, found in the Carlisle digs which had been selectively case hardened on one side only. I asked him about it and he told me how he thought it could have been hardened but said he doubted it would have been economical to harden segmentata plates in the same way. He also described a fragment of steel plate with an even level of carbon throughout, which appeared to have the characteristics of poured steel rather than case hardened steel. The advantage of case hardened steel in armour and weaponry, of course, is that that it has a hard outer surface but the iron core retains to ability to bend rather than fracture. A blacksmith I used to know had no doubt that case hardening could be successfully applied to mail rings prior to the assembly of a mail shirt.
Crispvs
Re: Lorica Hamata-just how good was it? - A_Volpe - 12-01-2005
I'm referring to the steel that is in Deepeeka armor, which some of us have.
Quote:we use mild steel as it is the closest material to iron which is readily available
That's what I mean, noone that I know of has armor made of iron itself, nor testing it with actual [Roman type] iron. (and if they did I seriously doubt they'd be willing to put it under weapons testing, and I wouldn't blame them!)
Very cool about your live fire research!
I didn't realize the extent of Roman metal making was such they were making "mild steel" and case hardened - is Annealing another term for case hardening? Sorry my metalsmithing knowledge isn't good.
I do remember reading that some Gladii were made of a low grade steel, but I had been under the impression that they didn't entirely realize/understand how they were doing this, or not consistently (since apparently weapons quality wasn't so good unlike today's stuff), but that if they did "this" to the metal it would give it "these" qualities.