03-03-2005, 04:01 AM
Think, people.<br>
The thickness of a sheet of linen is entrely dependent on the thickness of the threads it is woven from. If the only linen you have ever seen is what is used for fashion garments in department stores, then a "3 ply cuirass" does not seem very effective. Linen sails for great sailing ships are fairly thick compared to department store linen. I have a very old metal framed military cot in which the single ply linen bed is close to 1/4 inch thick! Three layers of linen like this would be a very adequate armor.<br>
<br>
I believe the account which describes the felt subarmalis also states that it was also worn alone as a form of armor. Here again, there are many qualities of felt, the useless kind you see in a dimestore, but some as thick and as strong as a buff coat, which was also a popular armor.<br>
<br>
Scientific tests at the Royal armouries have proven that a leather helmet can be just as strong as an iron one -- certainly more effective than some incredibly thin skinned Roman helmets.<br>
<br>
As for the bronze segmentatae, it is certainly possible, and the "praetorian" in the Mural of Nero's Golden House is probably the representation of such an armor, but it cannot have been common or more evidence whould have been found by now. Unless the Corbridge lorica type buckles and lobate hinges of the Bulgarian finds discovered in association with the cupric alloy lames show any evidence of actually being attached to the said lames, then in all probability, this find represents fragments of two seperate armors that just happened to have been deposited together. An excellent example of where this has occured before was in the armory of Carnuntum, where masses of iron scales and lorica segmentatae plates have rusted together in a single mass. Were they part of the same armor? Possibly yes, but more likely two (or more) armors that happened to have been buried together. Ultimately, if the Bulgarian lames were part of the same armor as the hinges and buckles foujnd in the same deposit, then cupric alloy plate fragments should be detected between the rivets and hinges and buckles.<br>
<br>
Dan<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
The thickness of a sheet of linen is entrely dependent on the thickness of the threads it is woven from. If the only linen you have ever seen is what is used for fashion garments in department stores, then a "3 ply cuirass" does not seem very effective. Linen sails for great sailing ships are fairly thick compared to department store linen. I have a very old metal framed military cot in which the single ply linen bed is close to 1/4 inch thick! Three layers of linen like this would be a very adequate armor.<br>
<br>
I believe the account which describes the felt subarmalis also states that it was also worn alone as a form of armor. Here again, there are many qualities of felt, the useless kind you see in a dimestore, but some as thick and as strong as a buff coat, which was also a popular armor.<br>
<br>
Scientific tests at the Royal armouries have proven that a leather helmet can be just as strong as an iron one -- certainly more effective than some incredibly thin skinned Roman helmets.<br>
<br>
As for the bronze segmentatae, it is certainly possible, and the "praetorian" in the Mural of Nero's Golden House is probably the representation of such an armor, but it cannot have been common or more evidence whould have been found by now. Unless the Corbridge lorica type buckles and lobate hinges of the Bulgarian finds discovered in association with the cupric alloy lames show any evidence of actually being attached to the said lames, then in all probability, this find represents fragments of two seperate armors that just happened to have been deposited together. An excellent example of where this has occured before was in the armory of Carnuntum, where masses of iron scales and lorica segmentatae plates have rusted together in a single mass. Were they part of the same armor? Possibly yes, but more likely two (or more) armors that happened to have been buried together. Ultimately, if the Bulgarian lames were part of the same armor as the hinges and buckles foujnd in the same deposit, then cupric alloy plate fragments should be detected between the rivets and hinges and buckles.<br>
<br>
Dan<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
