Bronze scale questions

[Cephas23]

If I wanted to make scale armour what type of bronze alloy would be best and what gauge? (or would brass be more authentic?)I've cut out about thirty scales in 22 gauge mild sheet metal using hand shears and think it may be a little bit too thin. Would 20 gauge in the bronze cut easily with hand shears? Also, if anyone has scale armour, how big are your scales? Many thanks.

[Matthew Amt]

Ave!

Well, it depends some on the time-frame you are aiming for. For the late Republic and into the Empire, you actually want brass, copper and zinc, which the Romans called orichalcum. The zinc content could be anywhere up to around 20 percent, so a "red brass" or "low brass" of 10 or 15 percent zinc is perfect. Modern "commercial bronze" is also a low-zinc brass, at least it's lower than the typical yellow brass which is about 30 percent zinc. Roman brass could also include some lead and even some tin, so you have some options.

I don't think 22 gauge is too thin, in fact many scales were thinner than that. Since they overlap side to side as well as vertically, there's plenty of thickness overall. Save yourself some weight! Bronze and brass are going to easier to cut than the same thickness of steel, generally speaking.

There are a couple great threads on scale armor already, including a really excellent method for make scales quickly.

Good luck!

Matthew

[Matt Lukes]

Right- 22ga. (0.64mm) is actually even perhaps a bit more than a 'common' thickness of about 0.5mm. There are even some tiny scales from Dura Europos measuring 6-7mm x 5-6mm that are just 0.25mm thick (30ga.). Of course those would be a horror show to make as a first project (or even a 50th LOL)- the two more 'usual' size scales are 0.5mm or so thick, so that's the one I'd suggest- used in the 1st-3rd centuries CE for sure. They measure on the order of 25x35mm for the larger type and 15mmx25mm for the smaller. Obviously the larger type takes fewer scales and is correspondingly less work.

What Matt said about the brass is all quite true- however it's not just about the zinc content; metallurgically, the zinc content of Roman brass was indeed lower than modern 'yellow' brass- the one you can get easily- however it does seem that their orichalcum varied in its alloying metal content such that sometimes it looks just like yellow brass. Brasses can have the same copper content with different zinc contents and the color of the brass will be the same- I have a sestertius, and a couple of balteus parts that are very close in color to yellow brass and yet it's said to be metallurgically the case that Roman brass couldn't have more than around 26% zinc (due to the process they used- B&C mention an ingot that's 26.8% though). If a Roman brass had say 26% zinc, it might also have had other metals that would further reduce the copper content even down to the 70% our yellow brass has, and thus the color would be nearly the same. So the question one is left with as I see it is which is most important to get right: the zinc content or the copper content? It would seem to me that the copper content, not just for being the primary colorant, would be more important in choosing a brass since one cannot account for unknown elements other than zinc in the Roman stuff. So yellow brass is an reasonable choice, not to mention the fact that it's about a million times easier to find than any other.

[caiusbeerquitius]

There are even some tiny scales from Dura Europos measuring 6-7mm x 5-6mm that are just 0.25mm thick (30ga.).

The average thickness of scales found along the limes is 0.25-0.30mm. 0.5 mm is rather rare, and on the thick side...

[Matt Lukes]

Well The actual artifacts I've personally looked at, which are the same type found at Vindonissa and other sites in western Europe, were about 0.5mm thick plus all examples from Dura Europos where thickness is given, save the super tiny ones I mentioned, one iron type (which is listed as 0.4mm) and one seemingly odd large type at 0.25mm, are also 0.5mm. I know Coulston wrote a short article about a fragment of squamata with a bit of leather edge binding whose scales, which again were quite tiny, were I think 0.25mm- but those were between the Dura tiny and Vindonissa small, so the thin metal is offset by the density of scales somewhat. What styles would the ones you mention be Christian (size, etc.)?

It's rather interesting though- sure 0.25mm is a thickness used, at least so far as I've seen on super tiny scales mainly, but that makes for extremely flimsy scales; I've made some samples in the past and I was surprised at how really unprotective it seemed. En masse as tiny scales compensates to a good extent because of all the overlap, horizontally and laterally- but it's still what seems more glancing cut defense than actual well-aimed slash and certainly it'd never stand up to a thrust or other penetration attack (I poked right through the test piece with little effort using a gladius). Really the 0.5mm test pieces didn't stand up so well to the thrust either, but at least being twice as thick, it performed rather better and would surely absorb more impact damage...

[caiusbeerquitius]

Well, there is a mass of objects from sites like (among many others) Weißenburg, Künzing, Straubing in various sizes. Some are even thinner. As tool marks show they were each individually cold forged, so the density of the material is very high. They also are largely made of copper-tin alloy, which is harder than the copper-tin-zinc alloys. In combination with textile backing such armour is quite formidble. See shots with a 70 pound bow at a (not very realistic) distance of 10 meters. The arrowhead used was a round cone, as found on the Saalburg, and which seems to have a higher penetration power than the pyramidal heads.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

That would hurt a little!

[caiusbeerquitius]

Yes, a little, but as such not fatal. At a normal fighting distance of, say, 50 m, the arrow would not do much damage, though, especially when coming not at a 90 degree angle straight on...

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes I know. But the shot in the picture would hurt.
The advantages of plate armour against that type of barrage seems obvious!
The dead on shots are the worry. The rest are nuisance, unless they strike unprotected areas.

[caiusbeerquitius]

The dead on shots are the worry.

Yup, right, but the wouldn´t pass the shield in a normal scenario.

[Virilis]

Very interesting!

A 70-pound bow is a bit underweighted in my opinion for warfare purposes. Still it penetrated this much, amazing (nevermind the short distance)! I usually shoot a 80-pound bow for fun so I could imagine that a bow for warfare should be around at least 100 pounds :?: ...

[caiusbeerquitius]

A 70-pound bow is a bit underweighted in my opinion for warfare purposes.

Doesn´t really matter for a test, all other possibilities can be calculated. All you need is a constant strength for the different tests, for which a 70 pound bow is just as fine as a 80 pound bow, a 50 pound bow, or a 100 pound bow....

Apart from that the regular ancient wood bows were usually not THAT strong...

[Virilis]

A 70-pound bow is a bit underweighted in my opinion for warfare purposes.

Doesn´t really matter for a test, all other possibilities can be calculated. All you need is a constant strength for the different tests, for which a 70 pound bow is just as fine as a 80 pound bow, a 50 pound bow, or a 100 pound bow....

Apart from that the regular ancient wood bows were usually not THAT strong...

If I remember correctly an average 10th century viking self-bow made of wood had a draw weight around 90 pounds. I must check this, anyway. Troops specialized in archery must have had very high draw weights with their composite bows. For example Ottoman archers did have 180 pound bows hock: :

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_h ... ntent;col1

[caiusbeerquitius]

The simplest forms of bows had just around 20 pounds... Still suitable for hunting, apparently..
For more information:

Niels Bleicher, Optimale Anpassung oder Tradition? Technologische Aspekte antiker Bogenwaffen Mitteleuropas im Vergleich, in:
Fansa (ed.) Experimentelle Archäologie in Europa. Bilanz 2005. Heft 4, 2006, 21-26.

Rudolf Walter, Gaëlle Rosendahl und Wilfried Rosendahl, Experimente zur Verwendung des „Mannheimer Bogens“ als Schießbogen, in:
Fansa (ed.) Experimentelle Archäologie in Europa. Bilanz 2005. Heft 4, 2006, 27-33. (A bit early, I admit, but not so different from later bows)

Reconstructions of the Alamannic yew bow from Oberflacht ( ca. 500 CE ) have between 30 and 70 pounds, with an average of 50 pounds.
[url:2ue0m05w]http://www.pfeil-bogen.de/oberflachtzug.htm[/url]

[Matt Lukes]

As tool marks show they were each individually cold forged, so the density of the material is very high

Certain styles of scale are slightly convex, which makes them rather stiffer- both the shape and the hammerblow necessary to form it.

So how thick were those scales? 0.3mm? And just how much padding is underneath?

Very true about the shield though :wink: