Scale Armor & Accuracy

[Dan Howard]

Question: Sim and Kaminsky imply that the Carlisle scales were about 1mm thick and base their reconstruction on this. I've seen some heavily corroded scales that are this thickness or more but on those examples where the scales are in good condition all of the ones I can think of are thinner than 1mm - sometimes a lot thinner. How many examples of squamata are people aware of that have scales as thick as 1mm?

[Doc]

Hello Dan,

None of the many examples I know of are anywhere near 1mm for scales. I know that scales have been recorded as having thicknesses in the range of 0.3-0.5mm. Maybe some of those horse armor scales could have been 1mm thick, but I am not sure.

[Dan Howard]

Knowing the thickness helps pin down how the scales were made. Thinner plate is easy to cut with shears while thicker plate is cut with a chisel.

They specifically mention a thickness of 0.9mm for the Carlisle scales (p.102). Could this be attributed to corrosion or is it the real thickness of the scales?

[Doc]

Unfortunately, I do not know about the scales in Sim. However, from discussing LHS and mail with Eric, it appears that many times they calculate things with the corrosion.

I for one do not believe the scales were that thick. Imagine the weight :eek:

[markusaurelius]

The scales in my collection (photo above) are .55mm thick, measured in the area without corrosion. I think that is a more realistic thickness. Other brass items from the period can be a bit thicker, and approach the 1mm + range , however they don't appear to be items that are made from sheet, but are more than likely cast.

[Kegluneq]

I for one do not believe the scales were that thick. Imagine the weight :eek:

They describe scale armour as being 30-40% heavier than lorica segmentata. Is that realistic, or a product of their overestimation of scale thickness?

[Dan Howard]

Sounds about right if both types of armour have plates of a similar thickness and both are made so that they cover the same parts of the body. The amount of overlap in scale is significantly more than a segmentata. But scale armour generally covers more of the torso than a segmentata so would weigh even more. I wouldn't be surprised if Roman scale armour was 50% heavier than segmentata or even more.

[Dan Howard]

I've just had a quick look through James' Dura Europos book and the only scales in there that are 1mm thick are described as "heavily oxidised". Those in good condition are around 0.5mm.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Examples from Künzing, Weißenburg an Pfünz, lamellar and scale, are mostly between 0,2 and 0,4 mm, if that helps.

[PhilusEstilius]

I think I would agree with Doc regarding thick scales from the weight point of view and then of course the idea of cast scales just strikes me as not a very good idea at all for a good strong blow with a sword and many of them would shatter.

The measurements given by Christian sound so much more realistic and even up to 5mm for having made several Squamata I am very aware of just how heavy this armour can be.

[markusaurelius]

They describe scale armour as being 30-40% heavier than lorica segmentata. Is that realistic, or a product of their overestimation of scale thickness?

I don't agree with that estimation. My Matt Luke make segmentata is about 20 pounds. My scale armor that I just finished, with 3300 (DSC made) scales, Carpow overlapping side stitching, linen thread and backing weights right at 10 pounds. The coverage for this armor goes past the groin and even has attached short sleeves. The DSC scales which are quite thin at .36mm and weigh 1 gram each. Doing some simple math, by adjusting the thickness of the scale to .5mm the weight per scale increased 35%, multiplied by the number of scales (everything else will weigh the same). The scale armor would weigh 12.5 pounds. This is well below the Legmentata weight.

[Kegluneq]

They describe scale armour as being 30-40% heavier than lorica segmentata. Is that realistic, or a product of their overestimation of scale thickness?

I don't agree with that estimation. My Matt Luke make segmentata is about 20 pounds. My scale armor that I just finished, with 3300 (DSC made) scales, Carpow overlapping side stitching, linen thread and backing weights right at 10 pounds. The coverage for this armor goes past the groin and even has attached short sleeves. The DSC scales which are quite thin at .36mm and weigh 1 gram each. Doing some simple math, by adjusting the thickness of the scale to .5mm the weight per scale increased 35%, multiplied by the number of scales (everything else will weigh the same). The scale armor would weigh 12.5 pounds. This is well below the Legmentata weight.

Thank you first off for the detailed break down of the composition and weight of your scale - I've had a hard time finding data of this sort so it's very interesting to read.

How thick are the plates on your segmentata? There's been some debate about the original thickness of the original plates as well - Fuentes in his JRMES paper on the topic argued that reconstructions were often too thick and heavy and provided his own weight of 5.5kg (about 12lbs). I'm assuming you would not agree with that, but is there any particular reason to disbelieve Fuentes?

[markusaurelius]

Hi Robert,

The plate on the Seg is 1.55mm thick (its a Newstead type). In terms of thickness and accuracy I'm not too sure, as I didn't do my own research (Matt did). A plate thickness of 1mm would drop the weight down to around 13 pounds according to my math, making both armors about the same weight. I'm sure Mike Bishop could provide some good estimation of the thickness of the surviving plates on Segs to give us an idea of the weight.

[Kegluneq]

The plate on the Seg is 1.55mm thick (its a Newstead type). In terms of thickness and accuracy I'm not too sure, as I didn't do my own research (Matt did). A plate thickness of 1mm would drop the weight down to around 13 pounds according to my math, making both armors about the same weight.

Looking at previous discussions on the topic such as this one it looks like there is some variation in the thickness of the Newstead and Corbridge finds, with the latter being slightly thinner on the shoulders (1.0-1.2mm), and both forms thinner on the torso (0.8-1.0mm). So your armour is at the upper limit (or near enough), and Fuentes' is at the lower end.

According to other RAT threads, the imbalance in plate thickness is important as the higher centre of gravity makes it easier to wear than if it were all the same. The thicker upper armour also makes sense because the heaviest strikes (overarm blows to the head) would hit this area, after glancing from the helmet.

Annoyingly, I've literally just returned my library copy of MD Thomas's catalogue of seggie finds so can't check these myself. :/

[markusaurelius]

To take the topic full circle then back to the scales, I find it hard to imagine scale armor being 30-40% heavier than seg armor. Perhaps they were calculating too many scales, going back to the start of this topic on how the rows overlapped and how reconstructions before tended to copy that. Less scales = less weight (not that 3300 is a small number anyhow believe me, based on how long it took!)