Roman Mail doublers when did they stop using them

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

OK, they may not be ring mail, but they are a doubler, of sorts, just of a different construction.
There are several republican era doublers that are not clearly shown as mail either, but are accepted as such.
It would seem feasable that they could still be in use here and there, as there seems to be a wide variety of other types of
epamonides/doublers in use. Perhaps they were too limited in use and too boring for the sculptors to bother doing.?

[Paullus Scipio]

Perhaps we had better define 'mail doubler'.

To my mind, they are a single piece that goes over the shoulders, that 'doubles' the thickness of mail over the shoulders and they come in two varieties - the celtic 'cape' type that fastens at the throat and comes down over the shoulder caps, and the Greek 'yoke' type - "U" shaped and usually with a 'step/notch' on the outside of each section that comes forward over the shoulder. This type does not usually cover the shoulder caps.

The shoulder guards/re-inforcements on a 'musculata' are two separate narrow rectangular pieces, and one goes over each shoulder and they are more or less the same front and back, unlike the 'mail doubler'.....

[Matt Lukes]

Right- the epomides of a muscle cuirass, for example, are not likely to have been intended to be 'functional' since they connect to the ends of the shoudlers of the back plate so are just simple extensions; they're only 'double' on the short section of the front shoulders over which they lie- they're not part of a large separate panel such as is seen on mail. I'd think too that scale also doesn't have a true 'doubler' as it- the form with the epomides- I would think it more likely to simply be of the same layout as the old Greek 'soft' cuirass (not going to get into the debate about name or composition LOL). Mail seems unique in having a second layer about the shoulders.

That ivory is interesting to be sure- but it doesn't seem to be clear evidence for the use of a mail doubler, which is the basic question. It certainly seems reasonable to expect that if the sculptor went to the trouble of showing mail in that rather unique way, and even the fringe below it, he would have done the doubler the same as the shirt if it actually were mail; but then having the same pattern on the doubler and on the cheekguards is problematic- it's hardly reasonable to consider the doubler of a laminated plate form and then not the cheekguards the same, and the latter seems rather unlikely given no independent evidence of such construction (I think). So perhaps it is artistic license- introducing some variation and some detail to break up an otherwise plain field. It is also a single example, and perhaps the artist was just following a convention rather than being true to life.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Who knows... hock:

[John Conyard]

I am willing to accept helmets had a long life span, perhaps say being issued three times, so 50-75 years. If they had no bullion value. I am willing to believe sword blades had a long life span of hundreds of years. But they would need regular re-hilting. And I can believe mail shirts had very long life spans. I was lucky enough to wear some eastern mail at Hastings in 2000, which had been worn thin with use.

But those breast hocks and attachment points look a little less robust than the mail itself. Like the sword hilts their life span would be limited. And they don’t seem to be common in iconography after 100 A.D.

To say they had survived until the 3rd century dates them within a 100 year time period. Perhaps a little rash and slightly imprecise. In fact “I don’t believe it.”

I’ve worn mail doubling with and without leather backing. At first I was in favour of the former. Now I’m a great fan of the latter. It really does help make the armour stronger, almost making a composite construction.

[Graham Sumner]

Paul Wrote:

....the cover did that for me, interpreting as it does the funeral relief of Gaius Valerius Crispus, Legio VIII, first half of 1 st C AD as wearing leather body armour and leather 'braccae'/ breeches....this interpretation takes us back to the fifties, and pre- Russell - Robinson, who effectively debunked such ideas, pointing out for example that armour depicted as coming over the shoulder cap could not be leather, since if it were thick enough to function as armour, it would be too stiff to allow the raising of the arm ! ( see cover of 'Ancient Warfare' Vol II Issue 4 Aug/Sept 2008 for an example of this rather impossible interpretation of the body armour of Facilis from his 1st C AD tomb at Colchester). Russell-Robinson pointed out that it was more likely mail, painted onto the relatively smoothly carved torso.

As an historian Paul you should know the old saying, 'never judge a book by it's cover'!

If you have not bought this book then I would say you have made a big mistake. Granted you will certainly not agree with the arguments of Mr D'Amato on leather armour but his collection of photographs and sources in a book for the general reader is second to none.

I agree with HRR that the sculptures would have been painted but none so far have ever been found that have been executed to look like mail. Some Roman period paintings show 'armour' with doubling that is painted with a white body and red doubling and a red reinforcing band around the waist, hence the 'impossible interpretation' on the cover of AW a painting by Shumate. (See bottom of this page for a sneak preview in the AW Banner!) This was in fact based on one of my own paintings for Ross Cowan's article on 'The Real Pullo and Vorenus', for the same magazine. Ironically the same source for the original painting has the same shaped doublers that you have pointed out. They are not unique, so we are faced with the usual situation that either several dopey artists made them up, got them wrong, or heaven forbid copied them correctly!

What the white and red colours in the original paintings actually represent is obviously open to interpretation. I suggested in my reconstruction that it could be linen or leather. Carol van Driel Murray said the white could represent silver, pers com.

You rightly point out that leather entirely covering the shoulder and upper arm would make it impossible to raise the arm. However both the original source and the two reconstructions in AW magazine show that the doubler in fact hides the area where there might be a seam underneath, which would therefore allow movement. Like a 17th c. Buff coat for example. In the case of Facilis where the doubler does not entirely hide the shoulder area the edge of the 'armour' is angled, again like the edge where the lower sleeve joins on a Buff coat, so presumably this would allow movement. Facilis again has a broad waist reinforcement, which I have argued is not a belt comprised of plates because it has a single crenelated design. A feature which also shows up on monuments before and after the Flavian period. If it is not weighted down with metal plates then this 'belt' would not be of much use in taking the weight off the shoulders if the shirt was mail but it might be a useful reinforcement to the stomach area to a non metallic shirt. I would certainly be interested to hear your views on this.

With regards to the doublers shown in the Ephesus carving they are, as you and others have pointed out, clearly not meant to be the same material. However again we are faced with the difficulty of understanding what the artist was trying to show and sometimes what we expect or want to see. To me they look very similar to what is shown in the fresco painting from the Orcus tomb and the Mars from Todi statuette. That is a doubler which is depicted with a series of horizontal and, or vertical lines. I have painted another reconstruction for Mr D'Amato (I know, I know :roll: :roll: ) who wanted a linen shirt reinforced with metal plates. However for the topic under discussion this takes the subject in the wrong direction of time, hundreds of years backwards instead of forwards! Could this be continuity of an older design perhaps?

An interesting fresco from Pompeii, published as an antiquarian water-colour copy, indicates how a Roman artist might have depicted mail. For the topic under discussion it also has a doubler! It shows a mail shirt with a collection of what looks like gladiator equipment. The mail itself is coloured grey with a series of lighter coloured flecks. In fact just how the late Angus Mc Bride nearly always represented mail! Of further interest is the fact that this mail shirt is worn over a red tunic!

@ Magnus
I´ve get this book as a gift from my new girlfriend. She found it during a short-time-trip in the Colosseum-bookshop. I was really happy to get this book from her, but when i saw the price, i was totally shocked, 80€ . The book is ok, but it isn´t worth that high prize! For me, the highlights are, as always, Mr. Sumners Colour-Plates.

That is actually more than double the standard price but for the amount of photographs and source references you wont get that in many other books. However am pleased you liked my paintings. For spending so much, if you PM me your address I will send you a signed card.

PS. A girl friend who buys you an expensive book is a rare thing. Normally you have to explain to your girl why you had to buy an expensive book, So hang on to her, she sounds like a good judge of character!

Graham.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Hm. I´m really sort of fed up with all these interpretations. Just as we would do with a text, the Roman iconography needs to be examined critically. So before we start to interpret it, a piece needs to be subject to a series of questions, so that we can find out how valuable it is for the question we try to answer through it. Such questions can be for example:
Who made it?
What was it made for?
For whom was it made?
Was it supposed to transport a certain message?
If it was supposed to transport a certain message, what was the message?
For which audience was it made for?
To which extent is the piece conventional?
etc.
This is the methodological apparatus established in the academic fields of art history and classical archaeology. It is absolute nonsense to simply ignore all these relevant questions and in consequence to assume that we are looking at photos from antiquity. In case one is familiar with the problems of the complexity of interpretation of modern or actual photos and imagery one gets a glimpse of the complexity of interpreting Ancient art... :roll:
(If you know German you may find this very interesting: [url:36ud5b85]http://www.zeithistorische-forschungen.de/site/40208413/default.aspx[/url])
Before such questions are answered individually for every piece under discussion interpretations of it are necessarily subject to failure.
So, for questions concerning the military equipment displayed we should at least start to find out if it was necessary at all if it was deemed necessary for the sculptor or necessary or important for his employer to show accurate contemporary military equipment on a given piece. If this is questionable, we should treat such sources with great caution, unless we can identify single pieces of equipment displayed on it from material findings. And even if e.g. a belt on a relif is displayed "correctly" ir doesn´t necessarily mean that the same argument can be made for e.g. a helmet worn by the same figure. Also we have to remind ourselves continuously of the highly archaizing character of Roman art. For understanding this see the general theory presented in Lendon´s Soldiers and ghosts, as well as the relevant article by G. Waurick, Untersuchungen zur historisierenden Rüstung in der römischen Kunst, in: Jahrbuch RGZM 30, 1983, 265-301, Tab. 37-62. We cannot simply assume that ancient art depicts contemporary or "correct" objects. Ancient art can help us in identifying objects we know from material culture, their use, how they were worn etc. But it cannot REPLACE evidence of material culture.

[Graham Sumner]

Who made it?
What was it made for?
For whom was it made?
Was it supposed to transport a certain message?
If it was supposed to transport a certain message, what was the message?
For which audience was it made for?
To which extent is the piece conventional?
etc.

Very interesting and valid points. To which one can add how competent was the artist and equally perhaps how competent is the modern critic! Are any of them even artists or qualified to judge art? Also perhaps even if Roman art was judged by art historians how many of them are even aware that Roman art might depict military equipment quite accurately. It would be a rare thing indeed if someone has a grasp of all the various disciplines involved here.

It is normal for Roman historians to say that Roman art declined after the Antonine period and to dismiss everything after that period as almost irrelevant. After all look how poorly the figures are sculptured in art of the tetrarchic period. That is obviously evidence of a decline in standards or is it....as the art historian Andrew Graham-Dixon came to realize in a recent programme on early Christian art, that would be the equivalent of saying look how poor Picasso's drew figures compared to those of a generation before.

The problem is if you followed the points you have raised to the letter you soon realize that there are are huge gaps in our knowledge of even very basic soldier types which we will probably never answer but as reconstruction artists or re-enactors you have to come up with something.

Graham.

[Paullus Scipio]

I am willing to accept helmets had a long life span, perhaps say being issued three times, so 50-75 years. If they had no bullion value. I am willing to believe sword blades had a long life span of hundreds of years. But they would need regular re-hilting. And I can believe mail shirts had very long life spans. I was lucky enough to wear some eastern mail at Hastings in 2000, which had been worn thin with use.

Well, in the case of the Apulo-Corinthian helmet I referred to it had been in use for around a hundred years or longer (5-4 C BC, in a grave of the 3 C BC ). As to the life spans of sword blades I can give a personal anecdote. My friend, the artist Jeff Burn (Warfare in the Classical World and many others) was one of the first re-enactors to joust in full plate Gothic armour, and was also an avid collector of mediaeval items. He would browse bric-a-brac and antique shops in Kent where he lived at the time. One day he showed me two swords he had bought in a bric-a-brac shop. They were from a deceased estate and had belonged to someone's grandfather who had brought them home from the Sudan as souvenirs from the battle of Omdurman (1898). They certainly looked typically Sudanese. Jeff was evidently pleased with them, but I was puzzled - Jeff normally was not interested in "modern" items.
"Look closer!" he said. Sure enough the blades had makers marks - which even I could recognise were the famous German 'Solingen' marks. ( Jeff had this verified by friends in the Tower of London Armoury, to be sure they weren't just native craftsmen faithfully copying an original).......They were genuine 15 C AD Solingen blades and had been in continuous use for over 400 years !!

As to mail, there are extant Persian and Indian examples of mail which were in continuous use for several hundred years.

But those breast hooks and attachment points look a little less robust than the mail itself. Like the sword hilts their life span would be limited. And they don’t seem to be common in iconography after 100 A.D.To say they had survived until the 3rd century dates them within a 100 year time period. Perhaps a little rash and slightly imprecise. In fact “I don’t believe it.”

Not so imprecise, since the post mentioned the item in question came from 'Dura Europos', hence c.255 AD. Certainly they peter out of the iconography around 100 AD and Trajan's reign. However I would disagree that the breast hooks are "a little less robust" than the mail. The ones I have seen are bronze, quite thick and certainly sturdier and less prone to corrosion than mail itself. In the light of the above, and the fact that some have survived in the archaeological record for 2000 years or so, I find it quite plausible that they might continue in use for 150-200 years..... D

[caiusbeerquitius]

Also perhaps even if Roman art was judged by art historians how many of them are even aware that Roman art might depict military equipment quite accurately. It would be a rare thing indeed if someone has a grasp of all the various disciplines involved here.

No, I think anyone schooled in the classic disciplines and capable of using the relevant methods plus access to the relevant literature i.e. a university library is able to do so. If not, something went wrong in the education.

It is normal for Roman historians to say that Roman art declined after the Antonine period and to dismiss everything after that period as almost irrelevant. After all look how poorly the figures are sculptured in art of the tetrarchic period. That is obviously evidence of a decline in standards or is it....as the art historian Andrew Graham-Dixon came to realize in a recent programme on early Christian art, that would be the equivalent of saying look how poor Picasso's drew figures compared to those of a generation before.

Well, that is basically a (pre-) 19th century mindsetting, which is in academical scripture overcome since the 1960ies.

The problem is if you followed the points you have raised to the letter you soon realize that there are are huge gaps in our knowledge of even very basic soldier types which we will probably never answer but as reconstruction artists or re-enactors you have to come up with something.

Graham, I said that the iconography should only be used after it was subject to the for the question relevant methods, and that it normally should be seen as a supplement to the material evidence. It is IMO in regard of the public memory and educational necessities irresponsible to publish popular "reconstructions" which are not based on results that were gained through a correct application of "scientific" method and logic, hence either interpretations or shots in the dark. It is IMO the opposite of what you say, i.e. better to come up with nothing than with things that create erroneous memories, just like, e.g. the Ben Hur cart race of he 1920ies. If reconstructions seem necessary, it then would be better to stick with sound evidence, and not to play ideas and publish them as fact, which, of course, is easier and less work.

[Graham Sumner]

It is IMO the opposite of what you say, i.e. better to come up with nothing than with things that create erroneous memories, just like, e.g. the Ben Hur cart race of he 1920ies. If reconstructions seem necessary, it then would be better to stick with sound evidence, and not to play ideas and publish them as fact, which, of course, is easier and less work.

Well that is indeed a topic worthy of a discussion in it's own right and these issues were in fact raised at the recent Limes conference. I know a lot of Archaeologists who are unhappy about reconstructions of any kind. I guess that includes re-enactment too. You get these arguments every time a full size reconstruction of something like a gateway is proposed. This has now resulted in some alternative interpretations constructed for display to the public. You are probably familiar with them as a lot seem to be in Germany. There are the older full scale 'replicas', if even that is the right word, and now the new versions such as gateways built out of metal framework or by using computer graphics projected onto screens. Much less costly if you make a mistake.

Whenever I work on my own projects, often in consultation with archaeologists, I always try to marry sound archaeological evidence i.e finds wherever possible with the sculptural evidence and again wherever possible with as many sources as I can find. As you know that is not always possible but I never try to pass off some of my ideas as 'fact' rather as things perhaps worthy of discussion. If people do not agree that is fair enough, unless of course they are based on sound archaeological evidence.

Working with archaeologists I quickly learnt that if you write or publish something you make plentiful use of words like 'probably', 'possibly', 'perhaps' and 'maybe'. You very rarely state something as a fact. For instance If you look at my first post in this thread, the only statement I make which I say is a 'fact' is that Angus McBride painted mail as dark grey with lighter coloured flecks and that the mail shirt in the Pompeii fresco is shown over a red tunic. So I hope you do not find me guilty of creating 'erroneous memories'.

Nevertheless maybe reconstructions even 'incorrect' ones can still be valuable as they can possibly give an insight into the state of knowledge of interpretation that was around at the time. For instance If you look at most children's Roman history books in the UK today, all reconstructions of Roman soldiers probably look like the Ermine Street Guard either in artwork or as photographs, possibly to the chagrin of most other UK re-enactors! Furthermore the textile Gladiator 'armour' that you sell yourself is based on modern interpretations of sculpture or painting not as far as I know any proven archaeological finds. I am convinced by the arguments by Junkelmann for it but I know others are not and by your own words

We cannot simply assume that ancient art depicts contemporary or "correct" objects. Ancient art can help us in identifying objects we know from material culture, their use, how they were worn etc. But it cannot REPLACE evidence of material culture.

perhaps then neither should you. :?

On the other hand as a moderator on this Forum you must be aware that there is a constant demand for answers to various questions that regularly crop up. In which case telling them there sadly is just no answer is the easy answer and less work too. Naturally people are not always satisfied if you say there is no answer and perhaps they might get upset when maybe all they needed are a few items to finish off their Tribune impression, they probably suspect you are hiding something. They could possibly be right, you really, really do not know which for some professionals is perhaps a hard thing to admit to, well maybe or maybe not!

Graham.

[Paullus Scipio]

Graham wrote:

As an historian Paul you should know the old saying, 'never judge a book by it's cover'!

If you have not bought this book then I would say you have made a big mistake. Granted you will certainly not agree with the arguments of Mr D'Amato on leather armour but his collection of photographs and sources in a book for the general reader is second to none.

Touche , Graham!....but in this case being a little familiar with Mr D'Amato's theories, I think the cover is highly indicative of the contents....as to his collection of photos and sources, I have been studying this subject ( Greek and Roman military history and associated subjects) for over 40 years, and in that time have made visits to countries, Museums, and archaeological sites all over the Mediterranean world. I don't doubt that some of the stuff referred to will be new to me.....but enough to make me want to part with E.80 ???? .......I think I will wait until a copy comes to "a library near me". :lol: :lol:

agree with HRR that the sculptures would have been painted but none so far have ever been found that have been executed to look like mail. Some Roman period paintings show 'armour' with doubling that is painted with a white body and red doubling and a red reinforcing band around the waist, hence the 'impossible interpretation' on the cover of AW a painting by Shumate.

Personally, I am extremely sceptical of the proponents of the garish "painted all over" interpretation of painted sculpture.....to extrapolate from, for example, one tiny flake sample that (say) a whole torso was so coloured all over seems to go too far with the evidence, given that in Roman paintings from Pompeii etc, statues seem to have been only 'picked out' or part-painted. When you say "Roman period paintings" I take it you mean Italian including Etruscan and Campanian? There are very few truly 'Roman' paintings that survive from the early Republic ! Early representations of white tube-and-yoke corselets ( including Etruscan examples of them in use alongside mail ) of the 4 C BC or later are most likely Greek/Macedonian type armour probably of leather, but possibly of linen.... I can't recall off-hand any examples that show armour descending over the shoulder caps - generally the 'cut' is quite different and appropriate for a 'stiff/rigid' armour.

However both the original source and the two reconstructions in AW magazine show that the doubler in fact hides the area where there might be a seam underneath, which would therefore allow movement. Like a 17th c. Buff coat for example. In the case of Facilis where the doubler does not entirely hide the shoulder area the edge of the 'armour' is angled, again like the edge where the lower sleeve joins on a Buff coat, so presumably this would allow movement.

...I don't believe one can make a proper analogy with 17 C Buff coats, which were evidently much thinner than 'tube-and-yoke' corselets. In any event, the typical buff coat shoulder wedge comes out only a little, but not down the arm/shoulder as for Facilis - which I would suggest proves my point, but for the fact that full-sleeved buff coats exist !! No analogy with these ancient leather armours is possible then.....

Facilis again has a broad waist reinforcement, which I have argued is not a belt comprised of plates because it has a single crenelated design. A feature which also shows up on monuments before and after the Flavian period. If it is not weighted down with metal plates then this 'belt' would not be of much use in taking the weight off the shoulders if the shirt was mail but it might be a useful reinforcement to the stomach area to a non metallic shirt. I would certainly be interested to hear your views on this.

I'm not sure that being weighted down with plates, or the width of the 'belt/feature' are significant...it is the 'cinching/tightness' factor that relieves weight on the shoulders, as I am sure you will know from having worn mail - and it need not be too tight when worn over an undergarment, as is clear in this case. Certainly the sculptor shows this 'belt/feature' as proud of/over the top of the 'lorica' ( see the sides of the waist for example), and indeed over Facilis' pugio belt, so it is certainly a belt of some type...probably fastening at side or rear, unless somehow 'hooked' together between 'panels'.... The central re-inforcement, or decorative feature across midriff goes back to classical Greece Tube-and-Yoke corselets and is clearly the 'style' that Facilis' armour is imitating, - except for the shoulder caps coming right over the shoulder and down the arm - especially the right arm, which really does imply mail. This is even clearer from other contemporary sculpture, and can really only realistically be mail ( see HRR's book for many examples of identically cut armour which are unmistakeably mail). The 'focale', if functional rather than fashion, is another hint that he is wearing mail....
For your leather interpretation to function ( and the 'leather lorica' is depicted much thicker than a buff coat I notice ), the shoulder pieces would have to be separate and articulated, like a mediaeval 'pauldron/shoulder piece', or the articulated 'manica', and in that case the 'shoulder guards/epotides' would be redundant, and hinder the 'pauldrons' function......which brings us back to mail as the most likely material for Facilis' lorica...

To me they look very similar to what is shown in the fresco painting from the Orcus tomb and the Mars from Todi statuette. That is a doubler which is depicted with a series of horizontal and, or vertical lines. I have painted another reconstruction for Mr D'Amato (I know, I know ) who wanted a linen shirt reinforced with metal plates.

...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.... similar shoulder guards and cheek-pieces to the ivory are depicted on an Etruscan sculpture from Volterra, of an Etruscan warrior in Apulo-Corinthian helmet and scale re-inforced 'quilted'(?) tube-and-yoke corselet - see Connolly "Hannibal and the Enemies of Rome" p.28 but left out of "G&R at War".

[Graham Sumner]

Hello Paul

Thanks for your interesting and illuminating comments.

but enough to make me want to part with E.80 ???? .......I think I will wait until a copy comes to "a library near me".

Who is selling it for 80 euros! They are making more money out of it than I am. If you want a much cheaper copy let me know!

I am glad that you seem to agree with me that the belt of Facilis appears to be of a single design not consisting of individual metal plates as is generally reconstructed. This is in fact my main contribution to the reconstruction. If worn over mail that would look pretty colourful.

The central re-inforcement, or decorative feature across midriff goes back to classical Greece Tube-and-Yoke corselets and is clearly the 'style' that Facilis' armour is imitating,

That is what I thought might be possible too. Which is why for the same reason I used the late Republican period painting from Pompeii that we have discussed before, as a source and the Ptolemaic stele which featured in an early edition of AW. They both show red doubling and reinforcements but yes the cut around the arms is different. Then again perhaps it was the artist, clearly at that date not a local, who was imitating Classical art!

For your leather interpretation to function ( and the 'leather lorica' is depicted much thicker than a buff coat I notice ), the shoulder pieces would have to be separate and articulated,

( I presume this reconstruction is the AW 'Vorenus' one now, not the 'Facilis' one?) That was indeed what I said in my previous post but I suggested that the join was hidden beneath the the doubling. Buff coats can come in a variety of thicknesses and another suggestion I have made is that the shoulder piece extending down the arm need not be the same thickness as the body. The extra protection at this vulnerable area is then provided by the shoulder doubling. Then again you can blame the artist, everyone else does!

Anyway I know my late night ramblings (or very early for you) will never convince you. However a friend of mine was impressed enough to say he would like to have a go at making a Facilis panoply based on my drawing. I will be as interested as anyone else to see how he gets on and will keep you informed. If it fails hopelessly I know most people will be very happy while there are others who will just say that is was because modern people can not make reconstructions properly. You just can't win can you!

Nice to speak (or is that type) with you

Graham.

[Paullus Scipio]

Graham wrote:

Who is selling it for 80 euros! They are making more money out of it than I am. If you want a much cheaper copy let me know!

...see ante this thread page 1 - that is what Marcus Athenobarbus/Marcus-Gerd Hock's girlfriend paid for one in Austria .....see his post Dec 1!

I am glad that you seem to agree with me that the belt of Facilis appears to be of a single design not consisting of individual metal plates as is generally reconstructed. This is in fact my main contribution to the reconstruction. If worn over mail that would look pretty colourful.

I envisage it as butted metal plates over a leather belt, or linked metal plates with no backing....both seem to have been known in other Roman contexts...

That is what I thought might be possible too. Which is why for the same reason I used the late Republican period painting from Pompeii that we have discussed before, as a source and the Ptolemaic stele which featured in an early edition of AW.

Decorative Red or 'purple' ( crimson) coloured shoulder guards/yokes and a similar midriff band on Greek-style Tube-and-Yoke corselets go back a long way and are abundant in Greek painting, Macedonian tomb paintings ( as well as Alexandrian ones) and Etruscan ones - to name but a few.

However a friend of mine was impressed enough to say he would like to have a go at making a Facilis panoply based on my drawing. I will be as interested as anyone else to see how he gets on and will keep you informed.

...I can save him the trouble and expense! If he makes the body with shoulder caps thin enough to flex ( and you can, since there are full-sleeved buff coats) it won't, in my view, be as thick as the ancient version ( I know, you can find sculptures with 'creased/flexed' armour of this type...but that's a different discussion ). If it is thick enough to be 'stiff', as I believe it should be, then the 'pauldrons' will need to be articulated to allow raising of the arms. Visualise this and you'll see in your mind's eye that as arms raise , stiff pauldrons rotate upward, tending to push 'epotides' up --which can't happen because they are fastened down to chest and back !.....If you have trouble with envisioning this clearly, try it with a small 'cardboard cutout' model.....it will save your friend heaps....
One more point is that both the undergarment with pteryges and the armour appear to encircle the whole of Facilis' arms ( like a T-shirt sleeve) ....which would appear to completely rule out 'pauldron' type articulated shoulders.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Graham, of course you are perfeclty right when you say

You get these arguments every time a full size reconstruction of something like a gateway is proposed. This has now resulted in some alternative interpretations constructed for display to the public. You are probably familiar with them as a lot seem to be in Germany.

and

Working with archaeologists I quickly learnt that if you write or publish something you make plentiful use of words like 'probably', 'possibly', 'perhaps' and 'maybe'. You very rarely state something as a fact.

and

Nevertheless maybe reconstructions even 'incorrect' ones can still be valuable as they can possibly give an insight into the state of knowledge of interpretation that was around at the time.

.
Discourse is everything, and "wrong" theories and interpretations are even necessary for discourse. But academic discourse is usually quite complex and usually hardly palpable for the laymen. The problem is thus rather a question of the context in which reconstructions are presented, and to whom and how they are presented. See above, I said:

It is IMO in regard of the public memory and educational necessities irresponsible to publish popular "reconstructions" which are not based on results that were gained through a correct application of "scientific" method and logic

which is my central point.

Furthermore the textile Gladiator 'armour' that you sell yourself is based on modern interpretations of sculpture or painting not as far as I know any proven archaeological finds. I am convinced by the arguments by Junkelmann for it but I know others are not and by your own words

But these are results of academic discourse, not assumptions by an idividuum, plus they are advertised as based on iconography only (not on my site, since I actually closed my shop and only relay orders, no time, no time... ^^, so my hp is certainly not up to date). And as such, they are a theory, not just a hypothesis.
To make it clearer, from a methodological point of view, as well as from a point of view of applied logical reasoning you put your bets on a lame horse when choosing your co-author for your latest book, IMO.

On the other hand as a moderator on this Forum you must be aware that there is a constant demand for answers to various questions that regularly crop up. In which case telling them there sadly is just no answer is the easy answer and less work too. Naturally people are not always satisfied if you say there is no answer and perhaps they might get upset when maybe all they needed are a few items to finish off their Tribune impression, they probably suspect you are hiding something. They could possibly be right, you really, really do not know which for some professionals is perhaps a hard thing to admit to, well maybe or maybe not!

Absolutely. As I said, discourse is everything...