Lorica Hamata or Lorica Segmentata

[Purplest]

Fratres,
I am in the process of putting together a Centurion's uniform from Claudius's invasion of Britain to end of 1st century AD and was wondering which would be more appropriate....a lorica hamata or a lorica segmentata? Or does it matter? And, if a lorica segmentata would be more suited, should i go with a Corbridge type A or B? Thanks for your input and knowledge!
Thomas Guenther

Sorry i posted this under the wrong category by mistake. If it can be moved to reenactment and reconstruction please do. Sorry!

[M. Val. Naso]

Segmentatas were rarely, if ever used by centurions, based on the evidence we have. Mail is much more versatile and shows off the wealth a centurion had (much like the scale armor, which needed extensive maintenance or large amounts of money for repairs).

[Purplest]

Thanks for your input and advice. will definitely take it into consideration.
Cheers,
Thomas

[Thomas V.]

If you should indeed opt for using a lorica hamata or lorica squamata for your centurion kit, keep in mind that the centurion versions of the two mentioned types of armour were designed in such a way that their appearance resembled the look of the muscle cuirass.

An example of a centurion's lorica hamata emulating the muscle cuirass look (Marcus Favonius Facilis, Colchester, dated to the time span between the Claudian invasion of Britain and the revolt of Boudicca):
[hide]http://gallery.nen.gov.uk/imagelarge69032-.html[/hide].

An example of a centurion's lorica squamata emulating the muscle cuirass look (Quintus Sertorius Festus, near Cellore, dated to the third quarter of the first century AD):
[hide]http://cdn.romanarmytalk.com/media/kunena/attachments/10629/SertoriusFestus.jpg[/hide].

[Purplest]

Thomas V.

I see what you are referring to. How the bottom of the lorica hamate is shorter and rounded at the bottom. In looking at the sculpture of it I also noticed that there are no chest hooks on the doublet. Did centurions not use them? Or did some centurions use them and not others? Or was this possibly just omitted by the sculptor? Also do you know of anybody that makes an accurate lorica hamate like that for a centurion? The ones I've come across are all longer than this and are straight at the bottom. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks for the pictures and the help!
Thomas Guenther

[Crispvs]

"Segmentatas were rarely, if ever used by centurions, based on the evidence we have."

I would be very hesitant about being too prescriptive about what sort of armour centuriones did or did not wear. The evidence we have for the equipment of around two thousand centuriones at any one time consists merely of the stelae of M. Favonius Facilis (hamata), M. Petronius Classicus (probably hamata), Minucius Lorianus (unarmoured), T. Callidius Severus (squamata), L. Sertorius Festus (sqamata) and I think two others whose names I cannot call to mind wearing musculata. That is two in hamata, two in squamata, two in musculata and one unarmoured. That might, on the surface of things, suggest that centuriones did not wear segmentata, but a similar review of legionary stelae would suggest that none of them wore segmentata either, whereas archaeological evidence shows that many did.

I think a better approach would be to suggest that centuriones, as experienced military men with existing knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses inherent in each type of armour, would choose armour which suited their personal preferences, whichever type that happened to be.

I would also be skeptical of the idea that sqamatas were designed to look like musculatas. Neither that shown on Severus' stele, nor that shown on Festus' resembles a musculata in form, and the apparent musculature visible on Festus' stone is little more than a common artistic trope which seeks to show an armoured man at his most heroic, with visible musculature. This might work well in sculpture, as well as with a tight T-shirt, but (as someone who wears squamata) I do not believe is possible with genuine squamata. Unlike mail, it is not flexible enough to settle so closely over the body that the shape of the muscles would show through, and in any case, a padded undergarment would need to be worn underneath, which would hide the shape even if it were possible.

Scale is quite simple and inexpensive to repair as well, by the way. Wire, thread and the odd replacement scale are not expensive, nor pliers hard to use.

Returning then to the OP's question, as an invasion period centurio, you could choose from hamata (body length and style of shoulder doubling to your preference), squamata (body length and choice of round neck or Greek style doubling according to your preference), musculata, or segmentata (of Kalkriese type, not Corbridge, which appeared later).

The important things to have as a centurio, of course, are greaves which cover the knees, a transverse crest on your tinned or silvered helmet and a good straight vine stick, as shown on the stelae of both Festus and Severus.

I hope that helps a bit.

Crispvs

[Purplest]

Crispvs,
What a wealth of information and therefore a lot to consider. It would seem that there are a lot of options. Does anybody make a lorica hamata with the curved bottom, etc. that a centurion would have worn? Just to let you know, as much as I would love to create a lot of my own kit, I run my own automotive shop and just don't have the time. Would appreciate any help in regards to where I may obtain such a lorica hamata. Thanks for your knowledge and input!
Thomas Guenther

[Thomas V.]

I would also be skeptical of the idea that sqamatas were designed to look like musculatas. Neither that shown on Severus' stele, nor that shown on Festus' resembles a musculata in form, and the apparent musculature visible on Festus' stone is little more than a common artistic trope which seeks to show an armoured man at his most heroic, with visible musculature.

I share your view regarding the musculature visible on Quintus Sertorius Festus' tombstone. However, when claiming the mail and scale armour worn by centurions resembled muscle cuirasses, I didn't refer to the musculature of Quintus Sertorius Festus' lorica squamata but rather to other characteristics of Marcus Favonius Facilis' and Quintus Sertorius Festus' torso armour. With regard to the tombstone of Marcus Favonius Facilis the musculataesque feature is the rounded bottom edge at the front (as remarked by Thomas Guenther). With regard to the tombstone of Quintus Sertorius Festus the musculataesque feature are the two staggered rows of semicircular scale flaps.

Mail is much more versatile and shows off the wealth a centurion had (much like the scale armor, which needed extensive maintenance or large amounts of money for repairs).

Scale is quite simple and inexpensive to repair as well, by the way. Wire, thread and the odd replacement scale are not expensive, nor pliers hard to use.

According to Thomas Fischer, the flexibility of mail and scale armour was the reason for centurions using said kinds of armour instead of real muscle cuirasses.

In looking at the sculpture of it I also noticed that there are no chest hooks on the doublet. Did centurions not use them? Or did some centurions use them and not others? Or was this possibly just omitted by the sculptor?

Every contemporary centurion depiction I am aware of doesn't include chest hooks. Maybe (some) centurions chosed to omit the hooks, as muscle cuirasses weren't equipped with chest hooks. In my layman (!) opinion the tombstone of Marcus Favonius Facilis is so detailed, that existing chest hooks would have been included by the sculptor.

[Purplest]

Thomas V.
I'm inclined to agree with you. That if centurions wore chest hooks then I think they would have been depicted on the stele. As the roman's tended to put lot of detail in there sculptures (Example: Trajan's Column).
Therefore I believe I need a lorica hamata with no chest hooks and a rounded bottom. Questions though...Is there a big difference in wearing an hamata without chest hooks compared to wearing one with them? How much difference do they make in the way the hamate fits and feels when wearing it? And are there any advantages as to having them or not?
Cheers,
Thomas Guenther

[Crispvs]

"With regard to the tombstone of Marcus Favonius Facilis the musculataesque feature is the rounded bottom edge at the front .... Quintus Sertorius Festus the musculataesque feature are the two staggered rows of semicircular scale flaps."

Good point, and one I had not considered before. However, the fact that Severus' squamata does not have a shaped lower edge, lappets, or anything else to distinguish it from any other squamata, should lead us to be cautious about assuming that a centurio's armour would necessarily differ from that of his men.

Therefore Thomas, while it might be nice to have an armour with a shaped lower edge, it would not be at all inaccurate to have one which either finishes just below the waist or which extends down over the hips either.

"Every contemporary centurion depiction I am aware of doesn't include chest hooks. Maybe (some) centurions chosed to omit the hooks, as muscle cuirasses weren't equipped with chest hooks."

How many have you seen? Of those wearing mail, Facilis certainly has doubling, so we might well ask about chest hooks, but Petronius Classicus does not appear to have doubling and neither does Marcus Caelius (who I forgot to mention above). Neither of the scale wearing centuriones (Severus and Festus) have doubling either. Minucius Lorianus is unarmoured. That would seem to be just one example of shoulder doubling to consult, unless you can think of some I haven't mentioned. ;-)


"In my layman (!) opinion the tombstone of Marcus Favonius Facilis is so detailed, that existing chest hooks would have been included by the sculptor."

Again I am inclined to agree with you here. It might be that the shoulder doubling was tied with thonging or laces to points on the chest of the armour in the same way as the earlier linothorax, as there must have been something to stop the flaps of the doubling flying up during sharp movements.


"According to Thomas Fischer, the flexibility of mail and scale armour was the reason for centurions using said kinds of armour instead of real muscle cuirasses."

Hmmm - that is as maybe, but I don't recall seeing that in the writing of any ancient author I have read, so it seems like an assumption to me.
I suspect that Mr Fischer is not used to wearing armour though, as if he was, he might have known that whilst less rigid than a musculata, squamata is far less flexible than hamata or segmentata as it needs to be attached to a fairly stiff backing material and due to the wired construction of the rows of scales there is only limited lateral flexibility. I say that as someone used to wearing both segmentata and squamata, as well as hamata, although I admit to never having worn a musculata.


Crispvs

[Purplest]

Crispvs,
I can go along with your idea that because the chest hooks were not depicted in the sculpture that the doubling may have been anchored in some other fashion. And that would explain why the sculptor didn't portray them. I believe that due to the way an hamata with a doubling is made that there would have to be something to secure the doublet flaps. Unless, the flaps of the doublet were permanently attached on the front in the same manner as the rear of the doublet was attached to the back. With rings? Is that possible? This is why I've been asking so many questions in regards to the chest hooks.
Peace,
Thomas Guenther

[Crispvs]

I would suggest that it could be done by attaching extra rings at the correct points on the chest (you would have to sort out the positioning when wearing it) and having corresponding rings on the underside of the flaps of the doubling, to which laces were permanently attached. You would tie these down onto the rings on the chest once you had put the armour on and untie them again before taking it off. Having the flaps permanently fixed in place might create issues with the ease of getting it on and off.

On the matter of how mail and scale doubling was attached at the rear, a number of near complete Gallic mail shirts which were discovered a few years back are instructive, as their doubling was attached at the back with straps and buckles, meaning it was potentially removable.

Have you definitely decided on mail, then, rather than scale or a Kalkriese segmentata?

Crispvs

[Purplest]

No, not completely sold on mail. But leaning towards going with it for a number of reasons. Like flexibility for one. Will do some more homework on the Kalkriese segmentata. Any information you may want to share on it would be appreciated.

Thomas Guenther

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

You may want to ask Eric Koenig, who makes a variant of the Kalkriese, based on current research.

[Purplest]

Mr. Byron,
Thanks for the referral to Erik Koenig in regards to the segmentata. I will check him out, but after thinking about things I believe I may go with the lorica hamata.
Cheers,
Thomas Guenther