New Guy hoping for some clarification

[Anonymous]

Thanks everyone for the answer to my questions. I'm a bit bummed that lamellar isn't accurate for my time period, or at least isn't documentable, but that's cool. Now I just need to figure out what kind of armour a warrior from 5th Century Briton would have worn<br>
<br>
Thanks again!<br>
<br>
Tom <p></p><i></i>

[aitor iriarte]

Tom,<br>
At heavy risk of being pedanthic , I'd answer:<br>
<br>
A MAILSHIRT (If he was rich enough)<br>
<br>
Aitor <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

True, but I know that I'm not rich enough<br>
<br>
Besides, I like to have options<br>
<br>
Tom <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=tomknighton>Tom Knighton</A> at: 7/28/04 11:09 pm<br></i>

[Anonymous]

Personally, I think that some of the respondents have done a disservice by obfuscating the subject about what is lamellar and when it was used. I hope that you are not discouraged by some of the tangential posts and continue to educate yourself.<br>
<br>
To this end, I suggest that you consider some of the historical evidence for lamellar armour as well as the possibility of its use by the Roman military. The evidence is usually presented in three forms, literary, archaeological and pictorial. Despite the many modern sources that refer to such evidence, there is really a paucity of contemporary evidence concerning the possibility that the Romans used lamellar armour. Most modern sources use the same source material to either support or refute current theories about Roman arms and armour. For more on this topic, I suggest that you read some of the more popular publications about Roman armour such as:<br>
<br>
MC Bishop and JCN Coulston, Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome (London, 1993)<br>
A Goldsworthy, The Roman Army At War, 100 BC-200 AD (Oxford, 1996)<br>
A Goldsworthy, Roman Warfare, (London, 2000)<br>
HR Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome (London, 1967)<br>
S MacDowall, Later Roman Infantryman (Osprey Warrior Series 1994)<br>
S MacDowall, Later Roman Cavalryman (Osprey Warrior Series 1995)<br>
M Simkins, Warriors of Rome (London, 198<br>
P Southern and KR Dixon, The Late Roman Army (London, 1996)<br>
IP Stephenson, Roman Infantry Equipment: The Later Empire (Stroud, 1999)<br>
G Webster, The Roman Imperial Army (London, 1985)<br>
<br>
Another good source is the Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies.<br>
<br>
For the following comments, I used HR Robinson, Oriental Armour (New York, 1967) as it provides more history of general lamellar usage. Starting on page 7, Russell states that the earliest lamellar armour was that of the Assyrians dating to the 8th and 7th Centuries BC (or BCE). He later states that European examples have been found in Cyprus (7th and 6th Centuries BC), and a possible Roman example was found at Dura Europos dated to circa 260 AD (or CE). The evidence is an illustration (graffito) of an armoured cavalryman, usually identified as a cataphract or clibanari. This may have been a Parthian auxiliary serving in the Roman army. Other contributors to the Roman army include Persians and Sarmatians. Russell states that Iran (ancient Persia) was the source of lamellar armour and its use spread both to the west and to the east. One of the conduits was the Asiatic nomad culture of which the Sarmatians are one branch. Variations of lamellar armour were found among Scythian, Hun, Avar, and related Asian groups all of whom did or could have influenced Graeco-Roman usage.<br>
<br>
One should not be discouraged by the lack of evidence found in Roman sources. There is only limited evidence about Roman armour in general, particularly if one considers the size and longevity of the Roman military. As mentioned above, modern sources refer to what exists. There is much more to be learned including the role of lamellar armour.<br>
<br>
I found two specific statements about lamellar armour. The first is found on page 96 of Bishop and Coulston:<br>
<br>
“first century grave at Catalka, along with mail, scale and lamellar armour, and various other pieces of military equipment indicating a blending of steppe and roman influences.â€ÂÂ

[Anonymous]

Wow! This has given me a pile of information to assess, and I'm loving every minute of it! I'll have to look at all the data and find what would be the best way to go for my impression.<br>
<br>
This is a wonderful place with extremely helpful people! Thanks!<br>
<br>
Tom <p></p><i></i>

[Lucius Aurelius Metellus]

In the Osprey book "Late Roman Infantryman", one of the color plates shows a section of Roman lamellar armour. Of course this is Late Roman, and I assume some of you refer to the lack of evidence in the earlier periods? I would love to find evidence to back up its use by at least the late Roman army, as I find it very attractive (and effective) armour. I agree with Tom, I'll use this form of armour if I can find sufficient documentation for its use. Although I am a fairly poor soldier and can't afford mail, I can make lamellar with my own hands...(I can make mail, too, but it really puts my patience to the test!) <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Mr. Gray,<br>
<br>
As I have already stated, Robinson is useless in regards to lamellar research. His definiton is flawed and most instances in which he refers to "lamellar", he should actually be referring to "scale". I have personally attempted to varify every instance in which Robinson uses the term "lamellar" and the earliest one in which I might be in agreement is Dura Europas - though not because of the graffito. All earlier occurrences have turned out to be scale - including Persia and Assyria.<br>
<br>
Regarding his mention of Assyrian lamellar. I have in front of me a copy of the only Assyrian archaeological report I have ever found in which actual fragments of iron armour were handled rather than ambiguous pictures and sculptures. Austen Henry Layard, "A Popular Account of Discoveries at Nineveh." J. C. Derby. New York. 1854. p221<br>
<br>
<em>"The Arabs employed in removing the rubbish from the chamber with the kneeling winged figures,[9.17] discovered a quantity of iron, in which I soon recognized the scales of the armor represented on the sculptures. These scales were from two to three inches in length, rounded at one end, and square at the other, with a raised or embossed line in the center, and had probably been fastened to a vest of linen or felt. The iron was so eaten by rust, that I had much difficulty in detaching it from the soil. Two or three baskets were filled with these relics."</em><br>
<br>
The plates described in this passage belong to corselets of *scale* armour. The description is very similar to earlier extant samples made from bronze. I can find absolutely no evidence to confirm that the Assyrians ever used lamellar. I challenge you to find anything dating before the 1st C BC anywhere in the world that can be confirmed as true lamellar and not scale.<br>
<br>
Lucius,<br>
Regarding Osprey publications. These are not scholarly works. Some are excellent but the vast majority are poorly researched and error-prone. It would be unwise to call something "evidence" simply because you saw it in an Osprey book. Unless you are knowledgeable enough to cull the cream from the crap then you should keep away from Osprey. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=danielraymondhoward>Daniel Raymond Howard</A> at: 8/3/04 6:54 am<br></i>

[Gregg]

PR Gray –<br>
<br>
Since there is no general consensus about what exactly constitutes lamellar, how can presenting evidence and personal interpretation be considered obfuscation and tangential?<br>
<br>
Regarding your evidence for the use of lamellar by the Romans:<br>
<br>
The Dura Europas graffitio is no proof for the use of lamellar by anyone. It might be a depiction of a Parthian cataphract, or a Roman cataphract, or a Sassanian cataphract, or a local auxiliary serving under any of the three. No one agrees. The depiction is very crude, but it might be relatively safe to say it show a figure wearing mail, with laminated arm and leg guards, riding a horse covered in a scale bard. This seems reasonable based on equipment finds and surviving literary accounts. But other elements are much less certain. The helmet and face protection, the identification of the possible side arm, and above all the weird torso armor, have all been debated for years without any consensus. I’ve heard the torso armor described variously as scale, locking scale, lamellar, and an early form of mail-and-plate. Judging from the finds at Nisa, it may be something that simply has no close parallels in the West. But the basic point remains that the Dura grafitto cannot be used as proof for the use of lamellar by anyone.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regarding the Catalka find mentioned in Bishop Coulston's "Roman Military Equipment", it was a Roman cavalry face mask helmet found with the remains of scale, mail and apparently lamellar armor in a 1st century grave that the museum holding the helmet describes as Thracian. However, it would have been much more helpful if you had given the rest of the quote from Bishop and Coulston:<br>
<br>
“Burials like those at Catalka…may involve native, perhaps especially Thracian, commanders of auxiliary units serving with the Roman army.â€ÂÂ

[Lucius Aurelius Metellus]

This is all quite a bit confusing to me, as I am not fortunate enough to have access to the references that you all have. Please pardon my dumb question, but I am new to late Roman reenactment. Is it not safe for me too use lamellar armour in my impression, and do you think I should perhaps consider another type? I love lamellar and prefer it to other types for its simplicity, but not enough to use it if there is any chance it might be incorrect to do so... <p>Lucius Aurelius Metellus, miles gregarius, Secunda Brittanica</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

If you define lamellar as "armour made from small plates laced or wired together in such a fashion that they have no need of a material foundation for structural support," then there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this sort of armour was used anywhere in the West before the 3rd/4th centuries AD. In the East the first occurrence of armour that I can confirm as true lamellar is in China, 1st C AD though I suspect that it appeared a little earlier on the central steppes where horse archery was prevailent. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=danielraymondhoward>Daniel Raymond Howard</A> at: 8/3/04 7:00 am<br></i>

[Anonymous]

The only reason Robinson sees a great similarity between scale and lamellar is because he doesn't know what lamellar is. Robinson's definition of lamellar is exactly the same as scale armour except that the scales are aligned vertically instead of staggered, and overlap upwards instead of down. <p></p><i></i>

[aitor iriarte]

Lucius,<br>
You can always wear locking-scale or simply scale armour. Your are allowed to make the scales rather big in size...<br>
Probably the sculptor depicting the defeated pretorians on Constantine's Arch exagerated a little the size of their scales, but they are really big ones (ca. 2" square, about the right size for horse armour! )<br>
Daniel,<br>
Only using your last definition could the Dura thigh guards be termed 'lamellar'. As Simon James explains on his book, those leather guards are of scale construction (not even locking-scale!) but with no fabric backing.<br>
<br>
Aitor <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Thanks Aitor,<br>
<br>
I have not read Mr James' latest offering and have had to rely on older publications for information about Dura Europas. This means that the Byzantines were the first Westerners to use true lamellar. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

"If you define lamellar as "armour made from small plates laced or wired together in such a fashion that they have no need of a material foundation for structural support," then there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this sort of armour was used anywhere in the West before the 3rd/4th centuries AD. In the East the first occurrence of armour that I can confirm as true lamellar is in China, 1st C AD though I suspect that it appeared a little earlier on the central steppes where horse archery was prevailent."<br>
<br>
Daniel - getting slightly off topic here, but would you not regard the Qin armours as being lamellar, then? They seem to fit your definition above - see www3.uakron.edu/worldciv/...armor.html for instance. While they don't _look_ quite like "classic" lamellar, they do seem to be small plates laced together without a backing.<br>
<br>
The same might even be said of much earlier examples like the Suixian Leigudun leather armours, though I suppose they might not qualify as "small" plates. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>...then there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this sort of armour was used anywhere in the West before the 3rd/4th centuries AD.<hr><br>
<br>
Well, since Lucius and I are portraying 5th Century, we should be in the clear on this. Correct?<br>
<br>
a confused Cavetus <p></p><i></i>