06-22-2013, 09:21 PM
A very interesting idea. I do agree that painted armor might be more resistant to weathering, but I believe that there may be a few problems with painted armor.
The Romans used milk-based paints. This paint tends to run when wet. If one were stationed in Britain (where it seems like it rains every other day.. :-x ), one would have to paint their armor once a week. Scutums hold the paint because they have a linen cover one them, and the wood is porous, and will also hold the paint better. As metal is a smooth surface, the paint really has doesn't have anything to attach itself to. The helmets that you showed were medieval helms, which spent most of their lives indoors. True, many ancient cultures did decorate their armor, but in the principate the Romans wanted to present their armies as a no-nonsense killing machine (which it was). Additionally, segmentatas ought not to be painted because paint could run into the hinges and prevent proper function. In fact, I believe that there is a description where Josephus describes the legion's armor as thousands of blindingly silver lights when they assembled for a pay parade during the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70. For some unusual reason, I cannot find that description anywhere on the internet.
It is true the Romans liked color. They dyed pera bags, belt pouches, belts, and pretty much anything leather. However, I believe that the Romans let nothing on their armor except oil and barbarian blood. :wink:
The Romans used milk-based paints. This paint tends to run when wet. If one were stationed in Britain (where it seems like it rains every other day.. :-x ), one would have to paint their armor once a week. Scutums hold the paint because they have a linen cover one them, and the wood is porous, and will also hold the paint better. As metal is a smooth surface, the paint really has doesn't have anything to attach itself to. The helmets that you showed were medieval helms, which spent most of their lives indoors. True, many ancient cultures did decorate their armor, but in the principate the Romans wanted to present their armies as a no-nonsense killing machine (which it was). Additionally, segmentatas ought not to be painted because paint could run into the hinges and prevent proper function. In fact, I believe that there is a description where Josephus describes the legion's armor as thousands of blindingly silver lights when they assembled for a pay parade during the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70. For some unusual reason, I cannot find that description anywhere on the internet.
It is true the Romans liked color. They dyed pera bags, belt pouches, belts, and pretty much anything leather. However, I believe that the Romans let nothing on their armor except oil and barbarian blood. :wink:
Tyler
Undergrad student majoring in Social Studies Education with a specialty in world history.
"conare levissimus videri, hostes enimfortasse instrumentis indigeant"
(Try to look unimportant-the enemy might be low on ammunition).
Undergrad student majoring in Social Studies Education with a specialty in world history.
"conare levissimus videri, hostes enimfortasse instrumentis indigeant"
(Try to look unimportant-the enemy might be low on ammunition).
