Plumata scale thickness

[Doc]

Does anyone know or have any idea as to how thick (gauge) plumata scales are. I was told that some of the individual scales were something like .25 to .30mm thick.

Any help would be appreciated

Thanks

Paolo

[martijn.wijnhoven]

I have looked through all the information I was able to obtain as yet concerning the lorica plumata (which is not much as little is published) and could not find a single mention of the thickness of the scales used. The only exception is Erik D. Schmidt who stated on this forum that the scales from the Newstead specimen are about 1 mm. thick. See: http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... mor+armour

Nonetheless, if I understand your other post right, you have recently contacted him and he mentioned that the scales are in fact a lot thinner than 1 mm. Would you or Erik be so kind to elaborate on this as much data on this type of armour is currently lacking?

I hope somebody else on this forum might have more information on other specimens.

With kind regards,

Martijn

[Doc]

Martijn,

Yes it appears that they are quite thin. I believe that the 1mm was mentioned becuase it took into account the corrosion still on the scale. However, Mr. Schmid has mentioned that based on some photographs he took himself, was able to extapolate the measurment of .25-.3mm.

I think however that even if the scales are thin, when overlapped they could afford some decent protection.


Paolo

[martijn.wijnhoven]

Paolo,

Thank you for elaborating on the thickness of the Newstead specimen. As the thickness of the scales seems not to be mentioned in literature, it might be useful to ask several museums for more information.

I agree that the overlapping scales, although thin, would seem to give a fair amount of protection. For that matter, I don’t know if anybody has ever recreated mail with such a small ring diameter as found on the plumatae and has done tests to verify the amount of protection it gives. Although the diameter of the wire is quite thin, I can imagine that a mesh of many small rings would be stronger and sturdier than just the wire diameter seems to suggest.

Best wishes,

Martijn

[Doc]

Martijn,

I agree with what you said. The scales amy be thin bot overlapped give a thickness of .75 and since they are ribbed, the rib gives an extra (maybe making the scale .8mm?).

The wire is fine but making a "net" with interwoven scales and interwoven rings (riveted and punched) would tend to lead to arguing that it is in fact a viable armor.

I personally think that it was parade armor as I mentioned in the other post. However, if you look at what Matt Amt suggested that the Romans were not practical and based on what you suggested that the riveted rings would be stronger to hold all those scales, then it could be parade armor.

I just think that the thin scales are light enough that riveting may not be necessary. However, if one considers that the wire was copper alloy and thin then possibly you are correct in saying that rivets were necessay.

But then why not bend the scales and wire them to a mail backing. It would still look and behave similarly and anyone could do it not requiring a master chainmail maker.

Look at Dan Peterson reconstruction. It is scales wired onto mail. It is not a real plumata. Nonetheless, it looks cool and gives the visual effect as to what it would have been like.

Paolo

[martijn.wijnhoven]

Paolo,

I think the lorica plumata cannot be considered parade armour for a variety of reasons. To stay away of double posting, I have summarized these points in your other post (Re-enactment & reconstruction – Plumata: battle or parade armour).

Greetings,

Martijn

[Erik D. Schmid]

Would you or Erik be so kind to elaborate on this as much data on this type of armour is currently lacking?

Yes, I would be so kind.

I had already elaborated on this subject here:

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... 8&start=40

[martijn.wijnhoven]

Thank you.

It is a pity that so little exact data on the plumata (or on mail) is published. Most articles do not surpass mentioning a ring diameter, some not even state if it concerns the inner or the outer diameter of a ring.

Best wishes,

Martijn

[Erik D. Schmid]

My pleasure.

You must understand, mail is not a very popular armour in the museum community and as such there has not been much scholarship done on it or any of its variances. What has been done usually winds up in journals with a very small readership if it gets published at all that is.

[Erik D. Schmid]

I needed to bump this back to the top because I am in need of some vital information. Would C26000 brass be alright for these scales? I initially wanted to use C23000 but am finding it is next to impossible to find it in sheet/foil form. What I have found has to be purchased in bulk to the tune of five tons. That is just a wee bit more than I need.

So, is 260 in the ballpark for Roman brass, or do I need to keep searching? Dr. Bishop?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I found the same problem with iron sheet supplier in Aberdeen.... :lol: :roll: I could get anything I wanted, as long as it was in a 2 x 6 meter sheet!! Was a bit too big to fit in my MR2 :oops:

[Matt Lukes]

Most of us consider it sufficiently close- it's been suggested by Mike Bishop that the Romans could only make brass with a maximum zinc content of something a bit over 26% if I recall correctly (RME2 is at home), and C26000 is 30%. There's little enough difference in the 'performance' specs between C24000, which is in the range of Roman brass and C26000, and visually it's hard to truly see any difference unless one holds clean examples of each side-by-side (C26000 oxidizes to a slightly more golden color like C24000s natural color). And for an emperical example, I have a Trajan Sestertius that's a very yellow brass- looks just like C26000 to me, so indeed Roman orichalcum could look quite yellow. So all-in-all, it doesn't seem to me that there's really any good reason not to use C26000 brass for reconstructions since it's so close and is the main available type. When you consider the high purity of modern alloy compositions, that itself is as much of a slight inaccuracy as is the slightly higher zinc content of C26000 brass- if one is acceptable, why not the other?

As for scale thicknesses, I can say for certain that there are examples of the smallest Lorica squamata scales (1.4x2.4cm) that are on the order of 0.5mm in thickness- I've examined originals. I've also examined quite a range of sheet copper alloy artifacts from those small hamata 'breast plates' to segmentata hinges, to a scutum umbo, and interestingly, all of them were approximately the same thickness- about 0.5mm- leading me to wonder if it might have been something of a 'standard'; with this consistency among different types of objects, it seems reasonable to expect Lorica plumata scales might be the same. Certainly the need to add a stiffening rib suggests the metal itself wasn't particularly thick, and an experimental scale I myself made using 0.5mm thick brass worked nicely and seems pretty tough. If this thickness was sufficient for squamata, it should have been fine for plumata too.

[Gregg]

Yeah, I tried to find a source for a small order of red brass about six years ago, no dice then either. But I think red brass (C2300) might have too high a zinc content to accurately represent the type of copper alloy the Romans used to produce scale armor. Dungworth’s analysis of Roman copper alloy artifacts from Britain included a number of lorica squamata scales, and the results suggest that there was no standard “formulaâ€

[Erik D. Schmid]

Thank you for the information Matt. It helps.

Gregg, the problem with C22600, C22000, and C24000 is that they are basically impossible to find in sheet form. Wire for the C22600, but that's it. I can see why so many people used C26000 for everything. It's pretty much the only style available.

[Tarbicus]

Posted by Paul Bardunias in the Greek section:
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... 371#160371

Look closely at the shoulders.

Purely for reference in this thread.