Armour weight

[Xavi]

Probably in ancient times there were diferent workshops with diferent solutions to armour. But logically the ones that offer better relation between weight-confort and protection will have more clients...alive.

After Marcos post on real weight of hamata:

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-mi...eight.html

Makes me think if mesures and weights we are using are correct.
Will be interesting to compare the weights and level of protection on different armours to understand their evolution, and replacement.
Dan give a very hight weight compared to Marcus, that maybe does not explain why hamata works better than bronce ones. Later I will like to conduct an experiment comparing arrow protection creating a patch in diferent materials.

First we will need to optimal know thikness against a 45 lb. bow at 25 feet.

Muscular bronce + ptrerugues (1 mm to 2 mm- weight between 4 and 8 kg plus pterugues)
Muscular Iron + pterugues (1 mm to 2 mm- weight between 3 and 6 kg plus pterugues)
Lorica Segmantata: (... 10 kg?.)
Hamata long (republican) + something under (linen or leather) (5 Kg or 10 Kg)
Hamata short (imperial) + something under (linen or leather) (4 kg or 8 Kg)
Linen glued
Linen quilted
Leather spolas
Also scamatas and plumatas

Will be interesting to compare the experience of diferent reenactors and real mesurements.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Hey, I suggest you first learn about the methodology of archaeological experimentation. What you present here looks like an utter waste of time and money. Plus, first read D. Sim work on this, if you haven´t. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Roman-Imperial-A...1842174355

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Although J Kaminski and D. Sim's book is good, they do make a lot of errors. Dan Howard can point them out.

[Xavi]

Not everything is iron. I suspect that subarmalis and pterugues play a very important part in the armour, even in the metalic ones.
Unfortunatelly there is no much unanimity in the "Methodology of Archeological experimentation" and very few practical experimentation. Diferent books and studies give diferent weights and thicknes.

If we can produce 10x10 plates on the original materials (later we will look for metalurgycal side) and we can test under practical situation, maybe we understand better the ancient armour, it´s limitations and the need of undervalued "soft" armour.

[Dan Howard]

10x10 isn't big enough and will be the wrong shape. You'd need a full cuirass to allow impact energy to be properly distributed. It would also need to be placed on a human analog with suitable underpadding because this also helps dissipate some of the energy. The main problem is that we have no idea what sort of underpadding was worn with various types of Roman armour. It would require a lot of research and experimentation just for this part of the exercise.

[Xavi]

I agree is not an easy task, but it will give us a better understanding of armour concept.
The size will not reflect all the properties, but can be shaped in the circunference of a maniquin in arc shape.

First step is to see if normal arrows were able to go through.

My suspicion is that most of them use some kind of linen support, because combine resistance and good flexibility, dificult to achieve with leather.

[Dan Howard]

Start by reading Alan Williams, The Knight and the Blast Furnace, Chapter 9. It is the definitive text for this kind of study

[Xavi]

Thanks Dan. I will try to find it.
In your experience what is the optimal quilting density to offer the best protection and keeping some flexibility on a linen armour of maybe 20 layers.
1 Inch between quilt lines?

[66kbm]

Lets face it....until someone decides to face an arrow wearing the kit we would all say is ok.....then its not going to happen, ever, as it means killing someone......it would always be "conjecture" ie supposition as to say weather the "killing" stroke/thrust etc, would be the final act no matter what the chap was wearing, there is always the case of the wrong time, wrong place as well
kevin

[Dan Howard]

Thanks Dan. I will try to find it.
In your experience what is the optimal quilting density to offer the best protection and keeping some flexibility on a linen armour of maybe 20 layers.
1 Inch between quilt lines?

I haven't done anywhere near enough work to answer this. I'm not sure that determining the optimal construction is particularly useful anyway. You are better off going to museums and examining how the originals were constructed. It doesn't help us if we work out what we think is the optimal type of construction only to discover that it was never used historically. Take a look at Williams' book. 90% of the book is spent cataloging and analysing museum examples. Only after doing this does he attempt to quantify the degree of protection afforded.

[Xavi]

This is dificult with materials that don´t survive time degradation.

That´s why we have to use a very less acurate "reconstructive speculation".

The example of Marco´s weight in Lorica Hamata is very significative. The diference in weight, from 4 kg to 10 kg reconstruction is shoking.

My point is that is not easy to understand why muscular cuirases were replaced by chainmail, if weight was so high and having a very poor protection against impact, and also a very unpleasend protection against arrows.

Maybe the hamata was not the main defense, but just a reinforcement of a linen armour. There are several points that can support ths asumption.

[Xavi]

Hi Kevin
You mean like this:

http://www.uwgb.edu/aldreteg/linothorax.arrow1.jpg

[Dan Howard]

This is dificult with materials that don´t survive time degradation.

I've already given you a partial list of surviving examples and primary sources describing how they were made. There are plenty of other examples in Middle Eastern museums. You start by analysing these and making accurate replicas.

My point is that is not easy to understand why muscular cuirases were replaced by chainmail, if weight was so high and having a very poor protection against impact, and also a very unpleasend protection against arrows..

Mail is very protective against arrows and a lot less susceptible to blunt trauma than many think. Mail also covers a lot more of the body than a musculata - which is one of the reasons why it weighs more. It was the most versatile and long-lived type of armour ever invented, seeing continuous use in virtually every metal-using culture on the planet for the best part of two thousand years. This might help
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.php

[Xavi]

The link you provide is very interesting, but also mention the importance of the "underwear" cuirass.