Roman Mail doublers when did they stop using them

[Dan Howard]

...In this instance I would tend to agree with D'Amato's interpretation ! The 'Mars Todi' is an Etruscan example of 'lamellar' plates over a typical Greek style Tube-and-Yoke corselet, probably leather, but perhaps linen....

If the plates are laced to a backing of leather or linen then it would fit the definition of scale armour, not lamellar. This type of assembly dates back to the Bronze Age.

Let's take the Mars of Todi as an example. Just looking at the statue tells us a few things but we don't know whether the plates are made of metal or leather; if there ARE plates. It could simply be a leather or metal cuirass with an embossed decoration. We don't know whether there is, in fact, a backing and if there is, whether it is of leather or linen (or wool, or felt, or...). We don't know the type of lacing used or the arrangement of holes or the lacing pattern. Without other archaeological evidence it is impossible to tell what sort of armour it is. However, there are surviving scales of a similar shape to those on the statue with holes that can be laced to closely resemble the assembly on the Mars of Todi. Experimentation has shown that these scales cannot be laced into a functional armour without a backing. So we can be fairly sure that the armour is scale and not lamellar. We still don't know what the backing is made from and we still don't know what the scales are made from. Metal scales are more common in the archaeological record but there are surviving examples of leather and rawhide scales.

[Graham Sumner]

Dan Howard wrote

I would submit that the buff leather of the English Civil War would provide little protection on a Roman battlefield.

I am not sure about that Dan, not that I am advocating that any Roman soldiers wore English Civil War Buff coats (Although I.P Stephenson appears to do so in his book on Late Roman Infantry!!!). It would appear that Buff coats could be quite expensive and therefore it is not surprising to discover that they were generally worn by officers and cavalry. Their widespread use by English Civil War re-enactors of nearly all ranks is I have been told a very misleading mistake. The Roman infantyman also fought with a shield and the combination of shield, armour (of whatever kind), subarmalis and the additional protection of formation is rarely taken into account when any experiments on the effectiveness of weapons against body defence take place.

And no matter what tests prove in anycase, you still have to take into account the penny pinching governments that send their troops into battle. Tests by the Royal armouries in the 18th century proved that leather breastplates were sufficient protection against pistol and musket but soldiers were never issued with them. Sounds all to familar doesn't it!

HRR describes Chinese paper armour, so I still do not get all the fuss whenever the words 'Roman' and 'leather' appear in the same sentence.

Graham.

[PhilusEstilius]

This may be a bit OT

I was many years ago commissioned to fit out the Middle March Centre at Hexham Northumberland with boarder rievers armour and weapons of the 17th century, I had to make a leather Jack which is similar to civil war gear worn by soldiers of that period.
After some research I discovered that the leather Jack had diamond shaped iron plates fitted inside hence the diamond shaped style of stitching found on these garments, holes in the edges of the iron plates helped to go along with the stitching pattern which does make for a very protective style garment.

[John Conyard]

Those iron plates would more normally be stiched in to a linen jacket. They make a good Tudor period armour. However we have no evidence the Romans could make thick oil tanned leather like a buff coat, traditionally tanned with fish oil.

I would favour an interpretation based around a vegetable tanned outer sewn on top of a padded or felt liner, designed to act as a sort of arming jacket. Leather and felt could be moulded to fit the torso, be flexible, and act as padding for armour. But it is pure speculation. Not an opinion dearly held.

[Dan Howard]

And no matter what tests prove in anycase, you still have to take into account the penny pinching governments that send their troops into battle. Tests by the Royal armouries in the 18th century proved that leather breastplates were sufficient protection against pistol and musket but soldiers were never issued with them.

Flexible buff leather? Or thicker rigid leather?

HRR describes Chinese paper armour

Actually the material was barkcloth, not paper. It has a lot of properties similar to textiles and has been used to make clothing for millennia.

so I still do not get all the fuss whenever the words 'Roman' and 'leather' appear in the same sentence.

The fuss is due to shoddy scholarship and flawed analysis. Not the topic itself. When someone comes up with a cogent argument for the existence of segmentata or musculata made from leather then I'll applaud them loudly and publicly and readily change my stance.

[Graham Sumner]

Hi Dan

Flexible buff leather? Or thicker rigid leather?

There is a photograph of one of the surviving pieces in the article on hardened leather armour by M. Beaby and T. Richardson published in the Royal Armouries yearbook 1997. At a casual glance you could easily mistake it for a steel cuirass. So I guess the answer to your question is thicker rigid armour.

Actually the material was barkcloth, not paper. It has a lot of properties similar to textiles and has been used to make clothing for millennia.

Well actually that is interesting, as an example of a cloak made from bast bark fibres appears to be mentioned in the Vindolanda writing tablets.

When someone comes up with a cogent argument for the existence of segmentata or musculata made from leather then I'll applaud them loudly and publicly and readily change my stance.

At least you are prepared to accept that the possibility exists, presumably based on your knowledge that leather 'armour' of various types was used elsewhere. I myself am not happy with the idea of leather segmentata but do believe that a leather cuirass in Roman times was at least technologically possible. Nonetheless I think it more probable that the leather 'armour' type more likely was a jerkin like cover for a subarmalis or the metal armour itself to protect it. I also think it a possibility that the combination of the leather cover and the padded subarmalis may under certain circumstances have even been deemed sufficient protection by the soldiers themselves.

Graham.

[caiusbeerquitius]

At least you are prepared to accept that the possibility exists, presumably based on your knowledge that leather 'armour' of various types was used elsewhere. I myself am not happy with the idea of leather segmentata but do believe that a leather cuirass in Roman times was at least technologically possible. Nonetheless I think it more probable that the leather 'armour' type more likely was a jerkin like cover for a subarmalis or the metal armour itself to protect it. I also think it a possibility that the combination of the leather cover and the padded subarmalis may under certain circumstances have even been deemed sufficient protection by the soldiers themselves.

I can certainly agree with that.

[Dan Howard]

I also think it a possibility that the combination of the leather cover and the padded subarmalis may under certain circumstances have even been deemed sufficient protection by the soldiers themselves.

Joinville describes an incident in which his camp was attacked by Saracens. He and his retainers had no time to don their hauberks and so engaged the enemy wearing only their padded underarmour. Joinville was hit five times by arrows and wounded by each but not seriously. He wrote that the next day he and his men were still sore from the injuries received but doesn't mention any fatalities.