Why banded armor (lorica segmentata)? Why not breastplates?

[Tarbicus]

JRMES 14 should have a bit to say about Roman plate production.

[Matthew Amt]

Also, medieval and Roman metallurgy were quite far apart. Gladii, for example, were made from wrought iron with a thin steel edge whereas medieval swords were made of a composite mix of steel and iron.

I thought that research was showing most Roman blades to be composites as well. Some definitely had iron or "piled" cores with steel edges, but some seem to have been more homogenous, a low-carbon steel or "steely iron".

Better steelmaking was a prerequisite for iron plate armour of manageable weight.

But the lorica segmentata was iron! So was medieval plate armor up until the 14th or 15th century. There's no problem with making plate armor from iron, and it works just fine. Steel is certainly better, of course, but is hardly a requirement for armor plate. Heck, look at all the iron helmets the Romans used, all forged from a single piece of metal--a breastplate wouldn't need a much larger piece of iron than a helmet.

Bronze plate armour, as used by the Greeks, was extremely heavy and Roman success lay partly in ditching this for increased mobility.

Oh? Do you have actual data on the weights of surviving bronze armor? Because I've been looking for years and haven't found any! There is a lot of "parrot syndrome", modern writers quoting each other about how terribly heavy it all was, but the only information I've seen about thicknesses imply that most bronze armor was around 1 mm thick. That makes a cuirass weighing 10 or 12 pounds--I've made one. Even if they made the breastplate 2 mm thick, you're still talking a max of 16 pounds or so. Lots of reenactors are wearing loricae that are heavier than that.

Valete,

Matthew

[mcbishop]

Despite what Mike Bishop has written on the subject, I am inclined to believe that the armour was not confined to the legionary soldiers, as Valerie Maxwell suggested.

Hmmm. I smell old chestnuts a-roasting... Val Maxfield was not the first to suggest this, it was in fact Günther Ulbert (in the Rißtissen finds report, IIRC), and it was Val (and those who followed her) who introduced the circularity by arguing that because lorica seg was found on sites in a province (Raetia) that supposedly did not contain Roman citizen troops, ergo any finds must be non-legionary. Works just fine until you remember that legions could venture into non-legionary provinces, the Burlafingen helmet (from Raetia) has a legionary inscription, and so on and so forth (arguments rehearsed ad nauseam in various places, including B&C2). What you need is the only true blade: Occam's Razor. Look at the representational evidence where image is tied to inscription; in every case, legionary troops are associated with distinctively legionary equipment (pilum, curved body shield), so where's the problem with lorica seg also being just legionary? To my mind it still requires special pleading to make the case for legionaries and auxiliaries equipped the same in the early empire. In the high imperial period, however, it's a whole different ballgame...

When I first started researching Roman military equipment I set out to prove (oh, the arrogance of it...) that Ulbert was right (this was in 1976, long before the 'Maxfield hypothesis' surfaced) and I bent over backwards trying to do so but could not get around the non-sequiturs in the argument and the fact the evidence did not and does not (but I cannot exclude the possibility that one day it may) support the argument. Give me a new tombstone with an inscription recording an auxiliary soldier and showing him wearing lorica seg and I'll be convinced. Until then, any amount of argument from just the finds is just wasted ink to my mind.

It's something of a circular argument.

Too right!

A given site (e.g. Hod Hill) is supposed to have been garrisoned by the legionary troops because fragments of lorica segmentata were found there. Which argument is then used in turn to 'prove' that only legionary troops used the armour!

Try inverting that; Occam's Razor is your friend...

Interestingly, Eberhard Sauer doubted the legionary specificity of lorica seg in his interim reports on his work at Alchester, only to have to contradict himself somewhat when he started proposing it as a previously unknown legionary base. I think it's called (forgive the pigeon German translation of the English wise saw) 'Kuchen haben und fressen' and it is, of course streng verboten!*

Mike Bishop

*You can't have your cake and eat it!

[mcbishop]

Oooh, I've just noticed I've gone quingentesimal and been promoted to Legatus Legionis... oh, but how I long for the simple non-competitive days of 'Editor of JRMES'.... and when karma was something that only people called Earl worried about.

JRMES 14 should have a bit to say about Roman plate production.

Along the lines that bog-standard Roman plate steel was better than anything being produced by the very best Renaissance armourers... but you're all just going to have to be patient.

Mike Bishop

[Tarbicus]

Along the lines that bog-standard Roman plate steel was better than anything being produced by the very best Renaissance armourers... but you're all just going to have to be patient.

[Praefectusclassis]

Want your old title back, Mike?

[Pompeius Minus]

I thought that research was showing most Roman blades to be composites as well. Some definitely had iron or "piled" cores with steel edges, but some seem to have been more homogenous, a low-carbon steel or "steely iron".

There doesn't seem to be a consensus. Some claim that the Romans had no idea of steel and that gladii simply had steeled or carburized edges, and others claim that they had some idea of steel even if the process was poorly understood and almost accidental:

It is controversial whether the Romans used steel. According to W.H. Manning, "there is no evidence for widespread, regular, intentional production of steel in the Roman Empire".

The problem is that the only essential difference between iron and steel is the amount of carbon in the metal. Regular wrought iron has a carbon content of about 0.5 percent and steel has a carbon content of 1.5 percent. It is possible that this much carbon was imparted to the blade by the charcoal used to heat the metal as the smith forged the blade. This contact between the metal and charcoal created a sort of outer layer of steel in a process called carburization.

It is doubtful that the Romans were aware that this process was taking place. They probably just observed that blades that were heated and reheated were stronger than those that were not. As the iron is reheated and hammered repeatedly, a strange thing takes place in the blade: it becomes an iron blade with thin strips of steel throughout. This works out very well because it gives the blade the strength of steel, with the "resilience of iron".

[...]

So the question of iron versus steel is really a matter of perspective. The blades had steel in them because of their exposure to charcoal, but they were not made entirely of steel. Thus, it appears that the Romans did have steel and appreciated its qualities, and that a typical sword had many bands of steel in it, whether the steel was intentionally created or not.

Source: The Roman sword in the Republican period and after

But the lorica segmentata was iron! So was medieval plate armor up until the 14th or 15th century. There's no problem with making plate armor from iron, and it works just fine.

I personally think that too much attention is given to lorica segmentata because of Trajan's column and the uniqueness and cool factor of lorica compared to hamata, but that’s really a subject for another thread. All in all I think both lorica and chainmail were fairly brilliant solutions in using composite materials (metal outer + subarmalis or other padding) to overcome the limits of metallurgy.

Regarding medieval plate armour and steel there again seems to be a lack of consensus:

The metallurgical study of armour and weapons has taken some major steps forward in the last ten to twenty years. [..]

The analysis of the metal takes three major forms. The first being visual examination under magnification by a trained metallurgist to distinguish the crystalline structure of the finished product which can tell one a great deal about the life of the metal used. The second is a spectroscopy, which may indicate certain components in the manufacture of the raw material, if the sources ore can be identified, and alterations to the material in the production of items. Finally, there are the physical properties of the metal, its resistance to penetration, and carbon content.

One of the main issues to arise from the metallurgical examination of period pieces is that steel was used for the construction of [medieval] armor to a much greater extent than was previously thought. Many scholars up to a couple of decades ago were of the belief that the majority of armour was made from iron and not steel. The fact that steel was the material of choice for the majority of armor greatly affects the work process to make and maintain the armor. Iron was used for armor and weapons but it does not seem to have been the choice for even common objects and was reserved for the lowest quality munitions grade items. When the modern researcher comes across a piece of quality armor made of iron this can be seen as a red flag that the item may be a later reconstruction.

The "steel" used in the age of plate armor, say 1300 to 1650, was quite different from the homogenous refined material in use today. It was a very streaky steel that could vary from wrought iron to medium carbon steel in the same piece and often had a good deal of slag throughout. This was compounded by the fact that most large elements were constructed by forging a heterogeneous bloom, often by folding or layering, to equalize the variables of the material. The production of steel in this period is not fully understood and certain aspects of the processing are still under study, but recent research has uncovered much of what the making of armor entails.

Source: Some Aspects of the Metallurgy and Production of European Armor (Oakeshott Institute)

Of course the article also says that the quality of the steel "could vary from wrought iron to medium carbon steel in the same piece", which may not be that different from Roman "accidental steel" or "steely iron". Have there been any similar detailed studies (with spectroscopy etc) on Roman arms and armour?

Oh? Do you have actual data on the weights of surviving bronze armor? Because I've been looking for years and haven't found any! There is a lot of "parrot syndrome", modern writers quoting each other about how terribly heavy it all was, but the only information I've seen about thicknesses imply that most bronze armor was around 1 mm thick. That makes a cuirass weighing 10 or 12 pounds--I've made one.

The only data I could find quickly was this:

The most common breastplate was the simply designed bell corselet. The front and back had sheets of bronze, which were connected at the shoulders. [..] The biggest problem with the breastplate was the weight of the bronze. Breastplates weighed anywhere from thirty to forty pounds [13-18 kg]. The breastplate accounted for half of the weight the wearer carried.

Source: Fairfield University Classics Dept

Victor Davis Hanson quotes 50-70 pounds (23-32 kg) for the full hoplite panoply including shield, which fits well with the figure above.

However you are totally correct about the parrot syndrome, and there have been ludicrous and totally inaccurate overestimates of the weight of medieval arms and armour that have been accepted as fact for a long time (and still are in some publications). As I understand it there are few surviving examples of hoplite armour in good shape, and Hanson based his estimate on a single specimen.

JRMES 14 should have a bit to say about Roman plate production along the lines that bog-standard Roman plate steel was better than anything being produced by the very best Renaissance armourers... but you're all just going to have to be patient.

I am sceptical...but I will wait patiently for the article.

[Tarbicus]

Some claim that the Romans had no idea of steel and that gladii simply had steeled or carburized edges, and others claim that they had some idea of steel even if the process was poorly understood and almost accidental:

When Scipio captured the Spanish swordsmiths and forced them to teach Romans how to make gladii, they could very well have passed on the knowledge of steel. One bit I read was that the Spaniards would bury the iron in the ground and leave it. After time they would return and retrieve the iron after the earth and moisture had eaten away the poorer quality iron, leaving the best quality stuff for the gladii. Could have been steel they were retrieving? And if the Romans followed the practice then ....

[Pompeius Minus]

One bit I read was that the Spaniards would bury the iron in the ground and leave it. After time they would return and retrieve the iron after the earth and moisture had eaten away the poorer quality iron, leaving the best quality stuff for the gladii. Could have been steel they were retrieving?

Because the chemistry was not understood there was a fair bit of mysticism and rituals attached to metallurgy before the modern era. It's quite possible that leaving iron in the ground is one of those accidental discoveries that were passed on without being totally understood.

In the 1600s the Dutch started using lime as a so-called fluxing agent that transported out impurities and produced iron of better quality. Another method that was discovered around the same time was that iron could be encased in an organic material which would diffuse carbon into the iron, producing steel. It's not impossible that the Spaniards stumbled on something similar to these processes, with the caveat that the iron has to be heated for the fluxing or carburization processes to take place.

If the Spaniards did indeed discover such a method, it's also possible that the secret was later lost because of the inherent secrecy and the fact that a poor or nonexistent understanding of the chemical process meant that it might not be transferable (e.g. if the Spanish soil had some kind of unique chemical property). It's a fact that some steelmaking techniques have been lost, like the secret behind the "wootz" steel of Indian origin.

For more on steel see History of iron and steelmaking from Wikipedia.

[Matthew Amt]

There doesn't seem to be a consensus. Some claim that the Romans had no idea of steel and that gladii simply had steeled or carburized edges, and others claim that they had some idea of steel even if the process was poorly understood and almost accidental:

Okay, I'll mostly buy that. Though it seems clear to me that the results they got were not accidental: sword edges harder or better steel than the rest of the blade, lorica plates harder on the outside than the inside, etc. They did not have a separate word for "steel" and could not have known what was happening on a molecular level, but there was some control over the process.

I personally think that too much attention is given to lorica segmentata because of Trajan's column and the uniqueness and cool factor of lorica compared to hamata, but that’s really a subject for another thread.

Fair enough, but lorica versus a musculata-like breastplate was the original question on this thread.

Regarding medieval plate armour and steel there again seems to be a lack of consensus...

Also fair enough. Most of my knowledge comes from places like the Armour Archive, where there are some folks with very detailed and up-to-date research.

Have there been any similar detailed studies (with spectroscopy etc) on Roman arms and armour?

Yes, a few bits in JRMES and one or two other publications. And fascinating tidbits they are!

...The only data I could find quickly was this:

The most common breastplate was the simply designed bell corselet. The front and back had sheets of bronze, which were connected at the shoulders. [..] The biggest problem with the breastplate was the weight of the bronze. Breastplates weighed anywhere from thirty to forty pounds [13-18 kg]. The breastplate accounted for half of the weight the wearer carried.

Victor Davis Hanson quotes 50-70 pounds (23-32 kg) for the full hoplite panoply including shield, which fits well with the figure above.

However you are totally correct about the parrot syndrome, and there have been ludicrous and totally inaccurate overestimates of the weight of medieval arms and armour that have been accepted as fact for a long time (and still are in some publications). As I understand it there are few surviving examples of hoplite armour in good shape, and Hanson based his estimate on a single specimen.

Bingo. None of them actually cites an actual weight or thickness for an actual piece of surviving armor. There are DOZENS of bell cuirasses and muscle cuirasses around, literally! Six or 7 in the Guttman collection alone, and who knows how many from Olympia. But NONE, as far as I can tell, has ever been placed on a scale. Go figure. Seems to be some ancient taboo against it--stands to reason if it would make all these experts look silly... (I can actually find more data on Bronze Age pieces, at least a few thicknesses here and there. Hmm, though that is almost always followed by the ludicrous conclusion that it was all too LIGHT and THIN to be functional armor! Mind you, that's 1 mm to 1.6 mm, same as the thicker plates on a lorica segmentata.)

Oh, on the subject of the gladius hispaniensis, is there reason to believe that the Romans got Spanish smiths to make them? I thought Polybius said that the Romans only copied the form of the blade, not the quality of the metal. And from what I've seen of the originals, the Romans kind of "Romanized" the whole thing, including features like waisted blades which the Spanish version didn't have. But we're getting off-topic!

Valete,

Matthew

[mcbishop]

Want your old title back, Mike?

Definitely :-)

Mike Bishop

[FlaviusCrispus]

Bingo. None of them actually cites an actual weight or thickness for an actual piece of surviving armor. There are DOZENS of bell cuirasses and muscle cuirasses around, literally! Six or 7 in the Guttman collection alone, and who knows how many from Olympia. But NONE, as far as I can tell, has ever been placed on a scale.

At Freeman & Sear, we are fortunate to have a Greek bronze cuirass in stock, namely this one:



This is sort of transitional between the old-style bell cuirass and the true musculata (it may have even been modified from an old bell cuirass by cutting off the bottom flare and "scooping" the neckline).

The metal is quite thin, and the whole thing is quite light. How light I can't say, yet, but when I get back to work Friday I'm going to pop the whole thing on a scale and see what it weighs. I've also got an Illyrian helmet in stock, which might well have been worn with this type of armor, and I'll weigh that too to get an idea of the total armor weight.

Damn!-- I had a nice Greek greave in recently, but sold it. Never bothered to weigh it. So we'll have to guesstimate how much that added to the total. Of course I could weigh my Centurion greaves, but those are steel, not bronze.

The shield is the true wild card. At Legio VI, we made some hoplite shields a couple years back for the "True Story of Alexander the Great" TV show. These had a wood core, but lacked the bronze facing. Matt, maybe you could weigh your hoplite shield to give us an approximation?

Long story short, but Monday, we should have a t least some idea of what Hoplite armor weighed, and see if V.D. Hanson and others are truly in the ballpark.

As an aside, several of our guys portrayed Praetorian Guards at the last Fort MacArthur event and wore bronze muscle cuirasses instead of segmentata or hamata. They all commented on how light and comfortable they were compared with the other forms of armor! Only trouble was, you simply could not bend over at the waist wearing one, and sitting down in one was quite uncomfortable (except for the short-waisted model).

[Matthew Amt]

Ave!

My Greek hoplon is about 18 pounds, which seems to be about the same as Connolly's reconstruction. And if anything, I think mine should be a little lighter--the wood is pretty thick at the edge. Years ago, I saw a note in a case at the Higgins Armory Museum that said Corinthian helmets generally run 2 to 3 pounds. If the estimates of 70 pounds total are correct, that leaves 50 pounds for the cuirass and greaves, and that's simply silly!

My own bronze cuirass is around 9 pounds, just under a millimeter thick. The problem with using reconstructions to estimate the weight is that they aren't necessarily the same thickness as the originals. BUT it really seems to me that 16 to 18 gauge (1 mm or a little more) is a very common thickness for ancient armor (iron or bronze!). Even at twice its weight, my cuirass would still only be 2/3 the weight of my old medieval mailshirt.

Dave, I'm really jealous of you! All the old stuff that you get to drool on... I would REALLY appreciate any scrap of information you can pass along for pieces of armor: weights, thicknesses, etc. There are still people swearing that Greek helmets were CAST bronze, by the way, so if you could take a peek inside and note the hammer marks--or even confirm that they were indeed cast!--I'd be eternally grateful.

Thanks! Valete,

Matthew

[FlaviusCrispus]

OK, (fanfare please), here are the results on muscle cuirass and helmet I promised:

Greek bronze muscle cuirass:

Breastplate: 2.25 pounds

Backplate: 3 pounds

Total: 5.25 pounds (even lighter than I thought!)

Helmet: 2.875 pounds

Total for cuirass and helmet: 8.125 pounds

I don't have calipers handy, but it appears the cuirass is only about 1-2mm thick.

The helmet is beefier. The edges are all thickened and are about 3-4 mm thick, so figure the entire helmet to be 2-3 mm thick.

Matt, I took some nice exterior and interior shots of the helmet as requested, and will post them as soon as practical.

Now the breastplate is for a very small, gracile individual, maybe even a young teenager. Also, there has been some metal loss over the years and a few areas are restored or filled with epoxy compound. But I'd say the metal surfaces are about 90% intact. And even if you double the weight of the cuirass, you're still talking about only 10 pounds or so.

So going strictly by what we've measured so far (your hoplon and my cuiurass and helmet), the totals are:

Hoplon: 18 pounds

Helmet & Cuirass: 8.125 pounds (actual) / 13 pounds (with conjectured double-weight quirass)

Total: 26.125 pounds (actual) / 31 pounds (double-weight cuirass)

So, to meet VDH's 70-pound estimate, the hoplite's greaves, spear and sword have to add up to between 39 and 44 pounds.

Not bloody likely!

[Matthew Amt]

UNDER 6 pounds?! I love it! Thanks, Dave, that's fabulous. Though I'm willing to bet that you are overestimating the thicknesses. 1 mm is about the thickness of a worn dime, and at those weights...

Breastplates can be surprisingly small. Hold your arms out straight in front of you, and have someone measure the distance between them--that's the width between the armholes. Next bend over 90 degrees and measure from the vertical part of your belly to your throat--that's the height from neck opening to bottom edge. Granted that folks were a little smaller back then, and I do think they tended towards a more wiry build. But even the Corbridge armor parts were described as being too small to fit anyone, and the repros we made to the same dimensions fit me and several of our members just fine!

Thanks again!! Vale,

Matthew