\"Celtic\" military technology and the Romans

[Urselius]

That is the passage that I alluded to earlier. Personally, I do not think that 'small pieces' can be anything other than scale or, possibly, lamellar.

However, there is the Dura graffito to consider: the lower torso is covered by rectangular plates that are neither scales nor lamellar. Plus Julian uses the metaphor 'web' for mail, would he have resisted the use of fish or snake metaphors if he were describing scale armour? The wording "small pieces" is strange when contemporaries must have had some familiarity with scale shirts. The Dura rectangles are small when compared with the parts of a muscle cuirass. Then there is the problem of unequal division of protection if what you say is true. Why go to the expense of giving the limbs intricate and expensive armour, when the more vital torso is given merely the same level of defence as most troops would wear - it just doesn't make sense.

[Dan Howard]

Julian the Apostate made a detailed description:

"Your cavalry was almost unlimited in numbers and they all sat their horses like statues, while their limbs were fitted with armour that followed closely the outline of the human form. It covers the arms from wrist to elbow and thence to the shoulder, while a cuirass made of small pieces protects the shoulders, back and breast. The head and face are covered by a metal mask which makes its wearer look like a glittering statue, for not even the thighs and legs and the very ends of the feet lack this armour. It is attached to the cuirass by fine chain-armour like a web, so that no part of the body is visible and uncovered, for this woven covering protects the hands as well, and is so flexible that the wearers can bend even the fingers." Julian, Orations I, Panegyric of Constantius, 37D (Loeb translation)

The Loeb translations have a lot of inaccuracies and are usually no good for extracting technical details like this. Has anyone here attempted their own translation?

[M. Val. Naso]

And if I'm correct, mail "mittens" are described as well?

[Urselius]

Julian the Apostate made a detailed description:

"Your cavalry was almost unlimited in numbers and they all sat their horses like statues, while their limbs were fitted with armour that followed closely the outline of the human form. It covers the arms from wrist to elbow and thence to the shoulder, while a cuirass made of small pieces protects the shoulders, back and breast. The head and face are covered by a metal mask which makes its wearer look like a glittering statue, for not even the thighs and legs and the very ends of the feet lack this armour. It is attached to the cuirass by fine chain-armour like a web, so that no part of the body is visible and uncovered, for this woven covering protects the hands as well, and is so flexible that the wearers can bend even the fingers." Julian, Orations I, Panegyric of Constantius, 37D (Loeb translation)

The Loeb translations have a lot of inaccuracies and are usually no good for extracting technical details like this. Has anyone here attempted their own translation?

I agree, certainly where limbis is concerned, but we cannot suspect Latinists of cocking up basic relationships like 'something connected to something else', and straightforward words like 'web'.

[Renatus]

Plus Julian uses the metaphor 'web' for mail, would he have resisted the use of fish or snake metaphors if he were describing scale armour?

This is false reasoning. You cannot base any argument upon what an ancient author might have written, had he thought of it.

The Dura rectangles are small when compared with the parts of a muscle cuirass. Then there is the problem of unequal division of protection if what you say is true. Why go to the expense of giving the limbs intricate and expensive armour, when the more vital torso is given merely the same level of defence as most troops would wear - it just doesn't make sense.

A horse is small when compared with an elephant but it is not a small animal. The Dura rectangles are not small. In fact, the first impression they give is how large they are. And they do not cover the shoulders and breast, as Julian's 'small pieces' do. Further, the Dura graffito has just the anomaly that you complain of; the arms and legs are protected by articulated armour but the breast is protected by scale or, possibly, mail.

[Urselius]

Plus Julian uses the metaphor 'web' for mail, would he have resisted the use of fish or snake metaphors if he were describing scale armour?

This is false reasoning. You cannot base any argument upon what an ancient author might have written, had he thought of it.

The Dura rectangles are small when compared with the parts of a muscle cuirass. Then there is the problem of unequal division of protection if what you say is true. Why go to the expense of giving the limbs intricate and expensive armour, when the more vital torso is given merely the same level of defence as most troops would wear - it just doesn't make sense.

A horse is small when compared with an elephant but it is not a small animal. The Dura rectangles are not small. In fact, the first impression they give is how large they are. And they do not cover the shoulders and breast, as Julian's 'small pieces' do. Further, the Dura graffito has just the anomaly that you complain of; the arms and legs are protected by articulated armour but the breast is protected by scale or, possibly, mail.

Thousands of academic analysts of literary texts, who base their work on word use and style would probably disagree.

The Dura graffito shows some sort of enhanced protection for the torso, that it doesn't appear complete is not really cogent to the argument. If you assert that the torso was merely protected by mail or scale, the graffito indicates otherwise. If you take Ammianus' statement as factual, "And the light circular plates of iron which surrounded their bodies, and covered all their limbs," then some sort of anime cuirass is being described, also not merely mail or scale.

[Dan Howard]

Further, the Dura graffito has just the anomaly that you complain of; the arms and legs are protected by articulated armour but the breast is protected by scale or, possibly, mail.

We don't actually know this. There was Persian padded clothing that looks very much like the Dura Graffitto and other contemporary illustrations such as at Firuzabad. There are two main interpretations of the Dura Graffitto - either the limbs are covered with segmented plate or they are covered in padded cloth.

If you take Ammianus' statement as factual, "And the light circular plates of iron which surrounded their bodies, and covered all their limbs," then some sort of anime cuirass is being described, also not merely mail or scale.

Scale armour can be made from small circular plates. There is alo "bezainted" armour where circular discs are attached to a backing, like scale, but do not overlap, unlike scale.

[Renatus]

The Dura graffito shows some sort of enhanced protection for the torso, that it doesn't appear complete is not really cogent to the argument.

Who says it is incomplete? Where has that come from?

If you assert that the torso was merely protected by mail or scale, the graffito indicates otherwise.

Read my post again. I said 'breast', not 'torso'. The midriff is protected by the rectangular plates but the breast is covered with scale or mail.

If you take Ammianus' statement as factual, "And the light circular plates of iron which surrounded their bodies, and covered all their limbs," then some sort of anime cuirass is being described, also not merely mail or scale.

This is a mistranslation. Ammianus is referring to the armour for the limbs; he has already mentioned the body armour. Ammianus and Julian clearly have slightly different takes on the armour of the clibanarii but, as it is unlikely that ancient armour was completely standardised, both could be right.

If you take Ammianus' statement as factual, "And the light circular plates of iron which surrounded their bodies, and covered all their limbs," then some sort of anime cuirass is being described, also not merely mail or scale.

Scale armour can be made from small circular plates. There is alo "bezainted" armour where circular discs are attached to a backing, like scale, but do not overlap, unlike scale.

The word Ammianus uses is "circuli" which, in the context, may be translated as 'rings' or 'hoops'.

[Dan Howard]

The word Ammianus uses is "circuli" which, in the context, may be translated as 'rings' or 'hoops'.

"Rings" could be referring to mail armour
"Hoops" could be referring to segmented armour

[Renatus]

The word Ammianus uses is "circuli" which, in the context, may be translated as 'rings' or 'hoops'.

"Rings" could be referring to mail armour
"Hoops" could be referring to segmented armour

The complete phrase is "laminarum circuli tenues".

Lamina = plate, thin sheet of metal.
Circulus = circle, ring, hoop.
Tenuis = thin, slender.

I read this as referring to segmented armour.

[Urselius]

By incomplete I meant that the lower torso of the Dura cataphract appears to have a plate reinforcement, whilst the upper torso and shoulders do not.

The original text:

quos lamminarum circuli tenues apti corporis flexibus ambiebant per omnia membra diducti ut,

I think that this is reasonably translated (with only the words relative to the point in question included) as "circular plates surrounding the body and every limb". Taken with the Dura graffito this could describe a similar lower torso reinforcement but consisting of horizontal lames rather than vertical rectangular plates. This particular phrase may in fact constitute a description of the limbis mentioned earlier in the same passage.

[Renatus]

The original text:

quos lamminarum circuli tenues apti corporis flexibus ambiebant per omnia membra diducti ut,

I think that this is reasonably translated (with only the words relative to the point in question included) as "circular plates surrounding the body and every limb".

No, it isn't. You are treating corporis and membra as if they were the objects of ambiebant, which they plainly are not. The object of the verb is quos, referring back to cataphracti equites. Corporis is in the genitive, not the accusative, and forms part of the subordinate clause, agreeing with circuli, "apti corporis flexibus", literally 'fitted to the bendings of the body'. 'Body' here means the body as a whole, not simply the trunk; the 'bendings' are the elbows and knees. Membra is part of the subordinate clause "per omnia membra diducti", literally 'divided through all the limbs', in which diducti also agrees with circuli. Ammianus goes on to state that in whichever way necessity caused the joints (artus) to move, the armour followed suit. The passage has to be read as a whole. He is evidently referring to armour for the limbs only.

[Urselius]

Quos here would mean them or those, referring to the circular plates, surely?

[Renatus]

Quos here would mean them or those, referring to the circular plates, surely?

No. The circular plates are the subject of the sentence (circuli is nominative plural). Quos (accusative plural), 'who, which', is the object. Thus, quos laminarum circuli tenues . . . ambiebant, 'which slender hoops of thin metal . . . encircled'.

[Urselius]

'which slender hoops of thin metal the body's bendings encircled, divided through all the limbs'

Would that be the translation? Though membra could also mean parts of the body not definitively limbs I believe.