Armour Design in Ancient Warfare Vol II Issue 6

[Robert Vermaat]

I had a few questions about several images of armour shown in Ancient Warfare Vol II Issue 6.

One is the picture of a suit of armour shown on page 15, described as "hypothetical reconstruction of a 3rd c. Roman lamellar armour based on findings from the Raetian limes. Limesmuseum Aalen."
I'm fairly convinced, however, that the image does not show lamellar armour but scale armour. Am I correct?

The second is about the (as usual great-looking) pictures of Johnny Shumate on the cover and on page 13. The men in front on both artworks wear what seems to be scale armour, the second one even locked scale.
Now what I am mystified about is how the belts in both cases seem to be able to compress the armour around the waist, indeed extremely so. This is something I'm totally unable to do on my own reconstruction of a scale suit of armour, and I've noticed that with others too - the belt is always in danger of slipping down. Some re-enactors wear fabric underneath to stop that, or hith the belt over the baldric for it to satay up.

The reason seems to be that scale, even more so with locked scale, becomes very stiff, almost like a solid metal hoop, and wont compresss much. I'm wondering how the suits of armour in Johnny Shumate's artwork can be compressed that much, and even stand out across the hips. Is it the same armour we're talking about?

[Johnny Shumate]

This is my assumption (which could be wrong): A belt tied around the waist would pull in slightly any type of garment worn, including flexible armour. I would think the sword belt under the waist belt would keep it from falling down. How did the ancients do it..? Isn't there many depictions of soldiers with scale armour and waist belts.
Johnny

[caiusbeerquitius]

My understanding is in general that the belts were not worn over the armour. 3rd century depictions of soldiers wearing scale armour rather show them without the belt, the belts are generally seen on the tombstones depicting the soldiers in tunic.

[caiusbeerquitius]

hypothetical reconstruction of a 3rd c. Roman lamellar armour based on findings from the Raetian limes. Limesmuseum Aalen

Oh yes, you´re right there. I have pictures of both types, this is the scale armour, though.

[Robert Vermaat]

This is my assumption (which could be wrong): A belt tied around the waist would pull in slightly any type of garment worn, including flexible armour.

Indeed, but that was my point - scale armour is not flexible. It's stiff. Almost impossible to compress.

How did the ancients do it..? Isn't there many depictions of soldiers with scale armour and waist belts.

Belts were worn over the segmentata, but with hookss keeping them up.

the other point was that the bottom of the armours in your impression stand outward, almost skirt-like. That they should not be able to do, unless aat some point at the back or on both sides, large gaps appear.

[Robert Vermaat]

My understanding is in general that the belts were not worn over the armour. 3rd century depictions of soldiers wearing scale armour rather show them without the belt, the belts are generally seen on the tombstones depicting the soldiers in tunic.

OK, which would probably mean that a squamata or a musculata would be fairly short - at best waist-long wwhere raised legs won't hinder movement. And a soldier sure needs his belt, worn under the armour then, carrying his knife, purse, whatever.

How would you interpret the belts on the tetrarch statue?

[caiusbeerquitius]

1. I would never have thought of seeing the Tetrarch statue as an "actual" depiction, but rather as an accumulation of attributes.
2. The belts are sword-holding belts, which is very different from the 3rd c. belts, which didn´t hold a sword - one had a balteus for that. The sword is heavy enough to pull the belt downwards on one side, so that it could sit over the hip. Alternatively there could have been hooks holding the belt, a detail that would certainly not show on this monument.

[John Conyard]

Much of this depends on the method of fastening the scale shirt. We cannot definatively say what methods the Romans used.

For example my inflexible scale fastens from my left armpit to the bottom hem, just beneath my waist. I generally wear a sash to pull the armour tight.

http://www.comitatus.net/events_files/R ... g3480.html

The sash can "compress" the armour, since in effect the armour does not make a solid circle around me, but has an opening on the left hand side.

However many scale shirts are designed to just pull over the head. You cannot compress such a design easily at the waist.

[Marcus Mummius]

I think Matt Lukes could offer valuable input on this subject.

He made a squamata for Edge Gibbons. The scales are not rigidly attached to each other with the 'staple method' most use in their reconstructions but the scales are attached to each other with rings. If a thin fabric backing is used the scale armour will be quite flexible and comform much better to the form of the wearer.

As Edge wears this armour he might have something to say about this too?

Kind regards,
Jef

[Robert Vermaat]

@ Christian:

1. I would never have thought of seeing the Tetrarch statue as an "actual" depiction, but rather as an accumulation of attributes.
2. The belts are sword-holding belts, which is very different from the 3rd c. belts, which didn´t hold a sword - one had a balteus for that. The sword is heavy enough to pull the belt downwards on one side, so that it could sit over the hip. Alternatively there could have been hooks holding the belt, a detail that would certainly not show on this monument.

1. it may not be ''real life-like' but I reagard it as 'realistic' enough to take it into account. We've discussed enough details of it.
2. I've never seen evidence for belt hooks on these belts. Also, heavy objects (unfortunately) do not stabilise the belt on one's hip but hasted the slide downwards. On a belt from Dorchester-on-Thames it is suggested that there's even a baldric attached to the belt, to hold it up.

@ John:

For example my inflexible scale fastens from my left armpit to the bottom hem, just beneath my waist. I generally wear a sash to pull the armour tight. [..]
The sash can "compress" the armour, since in effect the armour does not make a solid circle around me, but has an opening on the left hand side.

Great idea John.

@ Jef:

[..] a squamata for Edge Gibbons. The scales are not rigidly attached to each other with the 'staple method' most use in their reconstructions but the scales are attached to each other with rings. If a thin fabric backing is used the scale armour will be quite flexible and comform much better to the form of the wearer.

Yes, I've thought about that too. But my own squamata is modelled after the Carpow armour which shows scals attache to the ones on the left and the right, as they are on the fron cover of AW II.6. Those are fairly incompressable. The ones on the front man on page 13 are even more rigid, they're also attached to the scales below. That amkes me think that the compressing by any belt would be impossible without 'breaking' the armour.

[caiusbeerquitius]

1. it may not be ''real life-like' but I reagard it as 'realistic' enough to take it into account. We've discussed enough details of it.
2. I've never seen evidence for belt hooks on these belts. Also, heavy objects (unfortunately) do not stabilise the belt on one's hip but hasted the slide downwards. On a belt from Dorchester-on-Thames it is suggested that there's even a baldric attached to the belt, to hold it up.

1. Well it may be, but it doesn´t help in solving the problem.
2. What I meant are hooks on the armour, not the belt.

The Belt was THE symbol for soldiers / military identity, so it could well be that we see it on depictions, where it wasn´t actually worn in reality. I still think that belt + scale / lamellar armour doesn´t really work. Not without a balteus, at least, which somehow "connects" to it, like in the drawing. The leather of the belt wears down quite quickly, too on these types of armour.

[Marcus Mummius]

Robert, the scales are attached to the ones on the left and right but with rings instead of flat staples. You can see on this picture that the holes could be quite large and this would result in a much more flexible armour:



Here you can see Edge's squamata being compressed at the waist by the belt:

[Robert Vermaat]

Robert, the scales are attached to the ones on the left and right but with rings instead of flat staples. You can see on this picture that the holes could be quite large and this would result in a much more flexible armour [..] Here you can see Edge's squamata being compressed at the waist by the belt

Indeed. But that also follows from the size of the scales. The smaller they are, the more flexible the armour.
And, indeed, more room in the fastening makes for more flexibility as well.

But my original question wwas about Johnny's plates and the scales shown there, which more resemble my own armour. :wink:

[Peroni]

My scale shirt can be cinched at the waist somewhat. The smaller the gauge of wire used to link the scales, the more play they have horizontally.

Here..

[PhilusEstilius]

I have made a few squamata in my time and have found that it is an armour that can indeed be tailored in at the waist, I most times have had the opening at the rear down to just below the waist line. If one has good measurements of the person it has to fit this kind of tailoring effect can be done where it becomes a matter of a reduceing number of scales just after the hips, then an increaseing number above the waistline this way should a belt need to be worn it can be done in comfort.