Login

01-30-2004, 12:23 AM

I am considering losing what is left of my sanity by attempting a lorica plumata project. Can anyone tell me whether or not this link to scales would be appropriate material/type for reenactment? Also, does their construction method (detailed at the bottom of the page) seem appropriate for reenactment, or should I expect to create a complete suit of hamata and THEN add the scales? 
 
www.theringlord.com/cart/...cat=Scales 
 
 
If this seems like a good approximation of what existed, would the nickle coated scales be an okay replacement for tinning? I've never tinned anything myself, so I really don't know the level of color or texture that is obtained by it. 
 
Thanks! 
 
Britannicus

Matthew Amt · 01-30-2004, 05:31 PM

Ave! 
The scales sold by The Ring Lord are unfortunately not historical at all. (They are fishing lures, I believe.) The scales used on Roman plumata had 3 or 4 holes at the top edge, which was bent back at a right angle. The rings of the mail passed through these holes, as the mail was being constructed. There is a little more information on my Legio XX Squamata page, 
 
www.larp.com/legioxx/squamata.html 
 
I also think nickel plating should be avoided for any historical gear. Even if it isn't chromed (which it could be), it won't look like Roman tinning or silvering. 
 
So it looks like you're in for even more insanity than you thought! Oh, and don't you dare try to cheat by using butted mail, hee hee! 
 
I was talking to Noted Mail Authority Erik D. Schmid about some brass plumata fragments that he was able to examine in Britain last year. He feels they are parade armor because the rings are so fine and thin that they would not be very protective. He also noted that the scales were very thin, but kept saying they were one millimeter thick, which is actually fairly substantial for sheet metal. (Some lorica segmentata plates were actually thinner than 1 mm, though many were a little thicker.) So maybe his notes were in error and the actual measurement is less than a millimeter. 
 
Good luck! Vale, 
 
Matthew/Quintus

John M McDermott · 01-30-2004, 05:44 PM

Tinning is commercially available at a reasonable cost. I know a place in Houston, Texas, if that's where you live. They use the electroplate method, which I believe, even the expensive arms makers like Holger Ratsdorf do. Correct me if I am wrong Holger.

01-31-2004, 10:53 AM

Gratis tibi ago! 
 
I appreciate the insight Matt! Who would *ever* think about using butted mail? *innocent whistle* 
 
Well, so much for the "easy" way out! 
 
Britannicus

01-31-2004, 02:50 PM

Hello, 
 
First I would like to apologize to you Matt if my last e-mail was little to grumpy. 
 
Now the piece of plumata I examined was from the Newstead find and is housed in the reserve collection at the NMS. The piece is in a fragmented condition and is quite fragile. However I was able to obtain some rather decent information from it. 
 
The riveted links measured 4.62mm OD and 3.34mm ID. They had a thickness of .58mm and were of an ovoid section. The rivets were also ovoid in shape and looked to be made from flattened wire. 
 
The solid/whole punched links measured 3.3mm ID and 2.19mm OD. They had a thickness of .31mm and a width of .71mm. As can be seen by these measurements they had an obvious rectangular section. 
 
The scale was 7.52mm wide, approx. 1mm thick and had a length of 13mm which takes into account the folded portion where the four holes were pierced to accept the mail links. 
 
Bear in mind that these measurements can vary by several hundredths of a millimeter or more. 
 
In the Antiquities Museum in Newcastle there are two pieces of squamata. The smaller of the two has scales that are similar in size to the plumata from Newstead. Because of this one might conclude that the plumata could be mass produced. This may be true of the scales, but the links are another matter. When you look at the amount of work that is invlolved with its overall construction this idea quickly loses steam. 
 
On a side not I am in the process of getting the proper materials together so that I might construct a small piece of this armour. However, it will not be something that will be for sale. I would like to keep what is left of my sanity. I have lost most of it doing what I do now. 
 
Anyway, after discussing this at length both Brian Stobbs and myself came to the conclusion that this armour was mainly for prade wear or other function where the person wearing it would not be exposed to much combat. At least not in the position where they would be actual combatants. This is completely due to the physical properties of this type of armour. In my opinion a good solid thrust with a sword will penetrate this defense without much effort. To say nothing of what a spear could do. Now if the person were wearing a quality subarmalis like yours John it would still not make much of a difference. In fact the subarmalis would more than likely provide more protection on its own than if it was combined with the plumata. 
 
The one thing that this type of armour has over others of the same time period is how it looks. No matter your tastes you have to acknowledge the beauty of this stuff. 
 
Other examples of Roman mail are much more robust and as such would offer much better protection. 
 
John, I will be sending you an e-mail shortly. 
 
E

01-31-2004, 03:07 PM

Erik: 
Is there any indication whether any of the plumata fragments once constituted the main bodily defence, or is it likely that they were supernumerary pieces: short sleeves, pteryges, etc.? I think that, as sleeves or pteryges they would have made very handsome additions to, for instance, a musculata.

01-31-2004, 03:56 PM

Judging by the large piece shown in Robinson's book I would say that it definately made up the main body. It is also possible that they could have been used as cosmetic additions, but I would be hesitant to say that they definately were. 
 
E

Matthew Amt · 01-31-2004, 05:00 PM

Ave, Erik! 
Thanks for the clarification! Good to know you're keeping track of us. No worries about the email. Didn't mean to sound like I was challenging you, it's just so darn puzzling. I agree that the mail sounds too fine and thin to serve as combat armor, and yet scales 1 mm thick DO sound like armor to me. At least, they would be if they were sturdily connected and backed, and maybe a little bigger. So for parade armor, why the heck didn't they use thinner scales and save themselves some work? The small brass scales from Corbridge, Great Chesters, and Dura Europas were all about 0.25 mm, after all (and now I'm thinking they could have been parade armor, too!). 
 
However, I'm the last person to accuse the Romans of being logical, and I don't like to second-guess the "man on the spot". You've seen it, and have more experience than the rest of us. (And I don't want to sound like I'm arguing that this piece really IS battle armor, or that I don't believe in the concept of parade armor in general!) 
 
Are you sure you don't want to make a couple acres of this stuff for testing purposes? Hey, think how EASY regular 7 mm mail will be after that, hee hee! 
 
Vale, 
 
Matthew

John M McDermott · 01-31-2004, 07:21 PM

Erik, I keep hearing constant references that squamata would be worn in conjunction with an undercoat of mail. Some of the mail you have referred me to is so fine one wonders what its defensive value was. Together, possibly they created an effective defense system? 
 
Also, I am struck by everyone's obsession with high power blows. It seems a lot of armor might have been designed to deflect low energy cuts and sawing. But then, no one knows today what it was like to have 150,000 men on the field with little but blades and pointed objects to kill and wound one another. We like to think in terms of fire combat and overkill.

Gregg · 01-31-2004, 08:56 PM

Just for comparison sake, there is an article by Peter Price in the revised supplement to Arma (1989) discussing some then-recent finds of "lorica plumata" from the Roman fort at Usk in Wales. The evidence suggested that the finds were from two separate cuirasses, one of iron mail with iron scales, the other of bronze mail with I believe bronze scales. 
 
The iron example had 3mm diameter links, and the scales were 7mm long and 4.5 mm wide. 
 
The bronze example was composed of 3mm diameter bronze links, with one surviving scale measuring 7mm by 3mm. 
 
Price also notes that some 23 pieces of standard lorica hamata fragments were also found at Usk, and all but one had a link diameter of only 3mm, the exception being one piece with a link diameter of 7mm. 
 
Price says that the only reason these very small fragements of plumata and hamata were found at all was because of the systematic process of x-raying every bit of unidentified iron found at Usk (according to Price, when first discovered they looked and felt like nothing more than "fragments of cinder or clay"). 
 
The implication seems to be that such fragments may be quite common at other excavations, but without x-ray examination could not be identified as armor and were either discarded or stored somewhere as unidentified. 
 
This all seems to suggest the possibility that lorica plumata, and lorica hamata with very small rings, may have been much more common forms of armor then is generally supposed. 
 
Gregg

01-31-2004, 10:21 PM

1mm is quite thin by itself but overlapping scales increase the overall thickness. 
 
<img src="http://www.romanauxilia.com/Exploratio/xanten/xanten_armour/Image010_8.jpg" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.martin/forum/mark.gif
" width="100" height="100" align="right">
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=vardulli>vardulli</A> at: 1/31/04 11:24 pm

mcbishop · 01-31-2004, 10:53 PM

I don't want to sound like I'm arguing that this piece really IS battle armor, or that I don't believe in the concept of parade armor in general! 
 
Well I don't mind being caught saying that I do not believe in the concept of 'parade armour' in Roman armour (this has also surfaced elsewhere in another thread). 
 
So-called 'lorica plumata' has to be viewed as battle equipment. 
 
Why? 
 
It is found in the same contexts as material we accept as for battle use; issues of practicality (eg it's flimsy/vulnerable/fragile) never stopped the Romans (witness lorica seg and a lot of excavated examples of scale); we have to be so wary of imposing our own standards back onto the Romans (just because we think it would be unacceptable does not mean they would necessarily agree). 
 
Show me the results of Shrivenham-type testing on reconstructed samples made using comparable materials/methods of manufacture - and that it thus proves to be radically inferior to any other type of Roman armour - and I might begin to give at least due consideration to the issue, but until that time I think the whole 'parade armour' hypothesis is a chimera born of sloppy thinking on the part of past generations of art-historical-trained archaeologists ('it looks pretty so it can't have been for serious use') and that we, as students of Roman military studies, are better than that. 
 
Mike Bishop

01-31-2004, 11:52 PM

Alright, back off Mike. 
 
Mr. high and mightly with your Ph.D. 
 
The preceeding was meant as humour if you haven't guessed. 
 
Now, I am pressed for time so this will be short. The posts that have followed mine contain a number of things that would take longer to discuss than I have time for at the moment. So... to make a long story short at the present time I would like for you Mr. Bishop, Ph. D. to e-mail me so we can discuss other things in addition to the present topic. 
 
To the rest of you I will get back to you. 
 
Later, 
E

Matthew Amt · 02-01-2004, 08:40 PM

Uh, oh, I think I am going to officially Sit On the Fence on the issue of parade armor! (Before anyone tells me to go sit on something else, hee hee!) Mike, I'm certainly with you about testing, "practicality", and many of your other points. And I am usually the first to object to inflicting our own thought processes on the ancients. But that's why I can't rule out the general concept of parade armor--laboriously and tediously and expensively making a metal suit just for show just sounds disturbingly like something the Romans would do (if only to cause trouble for future scholars)... But like you, with the specifics of these plumata samples, I want more data! 
 
Like I mentioned over on the "Mail during the Empire" thread, I tend to resist an interpretation of something as parade armor because I've seen that get WAY over-done. Sounds like you feel the same way! But I don't want to go to the other extreme, not yet, since that also seems like imposing a though process on the ancients. Though I'm certainly not averse to having to say that there is no direct evidence for the existence of Roman parade armor, if that's the case. (IS that the case? Does that Josephus passage help either way?) 
 
Back to metals and physics, briefly! Vardulli writes: 
"1mm is quite thin by itself but overlapping scales increase the overall thickness." 
 
Okay, I'm with you on the overlapping part, which is why I've never objected to all the really thin scales that have been found. But 1mm is just a hair thinner than the 18 gauge steel that my lorica is made out of, and a hair thicker than the bronze used on my Corinthian helmet (which seems to weigh more than the originals) and Greek greaves (which are too thick to "spring" open and clip onto the leg, like the originals). Some of the Newstead lorica plates are about 1.2 mm thick, if I recall correctly, and aren't the Stillfried girdle plates only c. 0.7mm? I've seen several citations of pieces of bronze age armor that are about 1mm thick. So that seems to be a very typical thickness for armor which is widely accepted as being used for battle. And while it's pretty easy to bend lorica plate into (or out of) shape by hand, if you cut off a piece the size of your thumbnail and try to fold the edge back at a neat right angle, it will suddenly seem a lot thicker... On the photo you posted, if that scale is 1mm thick, why can't we SEE the thickness of the edge? The thickness of the metal should be greater than the width or thickness of the rings, and it really looks thinner than that to me. That was my question that woke up Erik, essentially. Am I just seeing it wrong, or was a measurement taken wrong (not that I mean that this is the piece he measured, though it could be), or what? Again, I'm just puzzled, here, not shouting challenges! 
 
(Uh, oh, again--Erik sent me a photo of the piece he examined. I'll have to dig that out and see if it's the same one, or what the scales look like if not.) 
 
At the risk of catching more flak: Assuming that these tiny mail rings are indeed too thin to stop a weapon, are we figuring that the rivet joints will fail, or will the rings be cut? My guess is that as fine as they are, this mail would be too strong for me to rip apart by hand, because I don't think I can break a single strand of wire that thick without some effort (and possibly pain!). (Like Mike says, I know I can rip apart my lorica barehanded, ripping the hinges apart and tearing the leathers off their rivets. And while wearing it I don't even feel some impacts that would kill an unarmored person!) But if the scales are thick enough to be defensive, and the rings are strong enough to hold them together under at least a certain amount of force, doesn't that mean they'll keep at least some slices and glancing blows off of you? Even if the rings fail and the scales pop apart under a sword cut, that initial cut has probably been stopped in the process, yes? Sure, if Conan the Barbarian shoves a spear square into your chest with both hands, he has a much better chance of going right through, but how often does that happen on the battlefield? 
 
Sorry, this is all getting into stream of unconciousness, and I usually try not to let anyone see how my brain jumps around. I was up too late last night and really need a nap... Same old story, the more we learn, the more questions we have. I'm going back to my fence! (Better view of the action from up here, anyway, hee hee!) 
 
Hey, no fighting, by the way! Mike and Erik, we all want to know what you guys come up with, but let's keep our shirts on (unless you're changing into your subarmalis). 
 
Vale for now, 
 
Matthew

02-01-2004, 10:28 PM

"Show me the results of Shrivenham-type testing on reconstructed samples made using comparable materials/methods of manufacture - and that it thus proves to be radically inferior to any other type of Roman armour - and I might begin to give at least due consideration to the issue" 
 
I think that the debate re penetration or what the armour could take if hit by a sword/ spear/ pointy stick actually misses a key part of battle- the psychological impact. Many uniforms/ armour/ formations through the ages have been designed to make the soldiers look larger, more unstoppable, and more frightening- with the effect that the opposing line breaks before contact. This is where the "parade armour and helmets" kick in. If I am a Teuton tribesman faced with disciplined ranks of Romans, some apparently wearing metal scales, cavalry wearing face masks, I may well feel inclined to melt back into the Teutoberger Wald before taking on these other worldly creatures. 
Perhaps we tend to judge by the rather drab uniforms of the last hundred years, where psychological impact is caused by large bangs rather than visual and aural mpact?

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Lorica Squamata Scales	Renger	3	2,080	03-31-2012, 12:27 AM Last Post: Renger
	Lorica Squamata Scales Source?	Gallus Marinus Micarius	5	2,529	04-26-2007, 04:24 PM Last Post: Hibernicus
	Lorica Plumata	Doc	8	4,508	02-03-2007, 09:29 PM Last Post: Dan Howard