Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
05-07-2016, 01:40 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-07-2016, 01:53 PM by Dan Howard.)
The technology for making plate was the same for both metals. Some iron examples:
There were baskets of Assyrian iron scales recovered from Nineveh and dated to the 8th century BC.
A. H. Layard, A Popular Account of Discoveries at Nineveh. New York: J. C. Derby. 1854, p. 221
There were hundreds of Persian and Greek iron scales found at Persepolis and dated to the fifth century BC.
Schmidt, Persepolis II: Contents of the Treasury and Other Discoveries, The University of Chicago Press, 1957, p. 97.
Posts: 177
Threads: 24
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation:
15
And this is the whole point. Scales.
Small pieces are easier to produce.
And as technology moves forward we see quasi-plates and in the end plates itself.
It was the same way in medieval. We can see that before full plate armor was used, chainmail had ruled on battlefield, the same way it had ruled in the Roman times. But after a while it was used alogside with segmentata and squamata.
Again, I'm not saying, no one else could work with iron becasue we have iron plates already from 4 BC. I'm saying that Late Romans could work with iron much easier and cheaper than anyone centuries before and I'm backing this with everything I have said in my long post on the first page.
And the question from the first post remains.
How did Romans produce iron strips and scales on a mass scale without forging sings?
Damian
Posts: 177
Threads: 24
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation:
15
Excalty. Of course we don't have as far as I know remains of rolling mills but it's a safe assumption that they had used it.
And if they had rolling mills, they could easily produce big iron plates.
Damian
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
You have a circular argument. You are using the assumed existence of iron musculatas to justify the use of rolling mills and you are using the assumed existence of rolling mills to justify the use of iron musculatas.
Posts: 177
Threads: 24
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation:
15
Not at all. They had to use something to produce strips. Rolling mills? Maybe, we don't know for sure. But whatever it was, it was able to produce strips on a big scale with constant thickness. Segmantata wasnt brought by aliens, romans had done them themself. How? I don't know, probably no one knows. We can only assume, think and talk about it. But out of the question is a fact they they had used something to produce them.
And my justification for musculata is not rolling mill. My justification for musculata are reliefs, economy, battle usage, recycling. This is what Im basing on, not rolling mills.
Rolling mills are only one way to make them.
Damian
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
You seem to think that every Roman sculpture ever carved was done by the same guy. Every artist had his own style, skill level, and budget. Some would have put more detail in the stone and others would have used paint.
Posts: 177
Threads: 24
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation:
15
So what's the point of making beautiful, highly advanced relief with more than 1 type of armor, where you show that second type of armor with many detalis and you carve everysingle scale while musculata next to it is plain? It does not have any sense to make highly detaliled armor like squamtata and segmentata and put next to it half-done musculata.
Damian
