Padded Armour

[John M McDermott]

A quick check of Webster's dictionary reveals that felt is defined as cloth, linen or wool that has been tightly woven and shrunk and has a nap, in addition to the better understood definition of; wool that has been pressed together.

Also, DRB suggested that the "Libyan hide" was a separate garment in and of itself, worn over the subarmalis and possibly even over the armor itself.

[Antonius Lucretius]

According to Wikipedia (In french) felt (the non woven type) has existed ever since paleolithic times. It can be made out of any kind of animal --or human-- hair and the bonding of the fibres is achieved thanks to the little scales on the hair that the shampoo commercial are always talking about.
Being pounded like that the little scales get entangled, thus creating a very solid bonding.l
Felt making continued after weaving was developed because obviously the peculiar qualities of the stuff as far as insulation --thermic, phonic, water-- go.
Indeed felt has better insulating qualities than leather. The steppe nomad's tents are made of felt, not leather, so are their boots. In the rain and snow, leather deteriorates rapidly, contrary to felt, which insulates better and dries quicker. Besides, contrary to leather, felt does not become slippery when wet.
Wikipedia also says that for an equal thickness felt will be a better protection than leather against arrows.
That IMHO, depends much on what kind of leather and what kind of felt and remains to be demonstrated.

[Daniel S Peterson]

I can perceive no purpose to sewing linen over a felt subarmallis. The felt itself would resist abrasion against metal armor far more effectively the thin linen fibers.

Yes the garment of "libyan hide" in DRB implies it is a removable overgarment to be worn only when rain is expected, and intended to the felt subarmalis dry.

The disadvantage of a felt versus leather tent is that the felt will absorb water and cause it to be too heavy a load for the pack mule. This is precisely why roman tents were leather, and not a cheaper substitue such as felt or linen, both material becoming sodden before they effectively repel water.

Leather impregnated with fat however, will repel water as effectively as modern plastics.

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

SALVE

I propose another posibility, perhaps one kind of straw or so (cannabis, etc). I have read one of the squamatae founded have signs to have been padded with straw.

Probably it has been many solutions and posibilitys.

[Daniel S Peterson]

Yes, there is a Roman account of this, and straw was a common filler in the padding of cheap linen armors/undergarments in the post Roman era. I mentioned earlier on this thread that this straw filling strongly suggested that it was uncommon to wash these garments. The straw would turn to mush, whereas felt padding would be largely unaffected by water save for its weight, which is why the idea of the waterproof leather covering garment was proposed by the DRB author, a historian recalling the "better" equipment of the "earlier" Romans. How early, we do not know, but I suspect the late first, and 2nd centuries AD when Roman was at its zenith of power.

[Crispvs]

Regarding the straw turning to "mush", it has sometimes occurred to me that the vertical quilting often depicted on aketons/gambesons/subarmali might have been open ended, enabling old straw to be removed and new, more rigid, straw to be inserted in its place, before the 'quilting' was sewn or laced up again.
Just a thought.

Crispvs

[Daniel S Peterson]

Interesting possibility Crispus, sounds like an excellent opportunity for some "experimental archaeology" to test the theory.

It should be remembered that modern combat uniforms are often expected to be worn for only two months or so of constant use, and then thrown away as totally worn out. It is hard to determine "wear life" of anicent and medieval military equipment since most enthusiasts only wear this equipment on the occasional weekend, and then rarely expose it the the rigours of a real combat environment.

Dan

[John M McDermott]

Why would the filler not have been the "felt" everyone argued so hotly about? Also, why could the felt have not taken the form of fleece as opposed to hardened felt?

[Daniel S Peterson]

I believe felt alone, as described in DRB would be much stronger as an undergarment under mail or segmented armor. Hard metal surfaces tend to wear out the tiny linen fibers, and then the filler is exposed. This problem doesn't occur with a thick, good grad of felt.

[John M McDermott]

Well, the proof is in the results. My subarmalis is made of very thick, tightly woven hemp. When putting on the hamata, it simply glides on over the hemp. No snags, no catching.

I continue to have reservations about encasing the human body in thick layers of felt.

[ambrosius]

Well, the proof is in the results. My subarmalis is made of very thick, tightly woven hemp. When putting on the hamata, it simply glides on over the hemp. No snags, no catching.

I continue to have reservations about encasing the human body in thick layers of felt.

I do, too, for mediterranean climates. Though it's possible felt may actually have been preferable in Britain, Germany or the Alps. I'm sure Romans were smart enough to find the best use for both materials. :wink:

Ambrosius

[Flavius Promotus]

A medieval source (10th century) mentions peasants and monastery personell making makeshift armour from felt ("piltris lorice fiunt") when they were under threat from a Magyar warband.

Robert has a good point about the weak credibility of the De Rebus Bellicis, you just have to look at some of the most bizar 'inventions' (cattle powered battleships, inflatable bridges, war chariots driven by automatically-lashed horses). It looks as if someone wanted to catch the emperor's attention at all costs, even with a number of hilarious ideas which look like 4th century science fiction.

BUT - the Thoracomachus chapter is one of the few which sounds rather credible, and which is partially supported by later sources (including the anonymus peri strategias from the 6th century).

The other 'inventions' in the De Rebus Bellicis' are sometimes allegedly based on experience, but only the 'Thoracomachus'(subarmalis) is grouped

"Among all the inventions devised for military puspose by the ancients in their forethough for future generations..." (Transl. by E.A. Thompson)

Although the 'forethought for future generations' ides can be skipped, the author does concede that the thoracomachus/subarmalis has been in existence in earlier times, and is NOT something which comes out of the blue (i.e. the imagination of the anonymous author).

So at least this short chapter in the De Rebus Bellicis seems to be reliable (to a certain extent).

Vale,
Aurelius Florianus/Flavius Promotus

[Robert Vermaat]

Robert has a good point about the weak credibility of the De Rebus Bellicis, you just have to look at some of the most bizar 'inventions' (cattle powered battleships, inflatable bridges, war chariots driven by automatically-lashed horses). It looks as if someone wanted to catch the emperor's attention at all costs, even with a number of hilarious ideas which look like 4th century science fiction.
BUT - the Thoracomachus chapter is one of the few which sounds rather credible, and which is partially supported by later sources (including the anonymus peri strategias from the 6th century).

My point is not so much that the DRB is less credible, but that the whole content is about inventions and innovations of existing equipment. Therefore, I don't doubt the (proven) existence of the subarmalis, but I keep stressing that we should look at the Thoracomachus/Lybian Hide (combination) as something either new, or innovated.
Only, hich part is new or innovated, I don't dare to presume.
If the interpretation is correct that DRB saw the padded Thoracomachus as armour, than I'd say that was the new part. Covering such an armour with a Libyan hide makes sense.
But if this was a padded subarmalis, to be worn under the main armour, as others have stressed, than wearing the Libyan hide under that armour makes no sense at all.

[Flavius Promotus]

Sorry Robert, should have read your reply more thoroughly :oops:

To see the Thoracomachus as armour of its own would make sense - if the 6th century has armour made from felt and/or leather, then why should 'felt armour' not have existed in the 4th century ?

On the other hand, according to the Anonymus the 'Thoracomachus' is/was just a subarmalis worn ad leuamen corporis armorum ponderi et asperitati (to relieve the weight and friction of the armour from the body)

A few lines later the same thing is stated again: the 'Thoracomachus' is worn to keep loricae (mail), clibani (squale) or similar armour from injuring the body through their weight and friction - ut hoc inducto primum lorica uel cliuanus aut his similia fragilitatem corporis ponderis asperitate non laederent.

How about the following solution...

If it is possible to wear a thick subarmalis as armour (if you can't afford metal armour, or if you want to be faster), than it would make sense to cover this subarmalis with a leather coat in rainy weather.
If however you wear the subarmalis as a subarmalis, then a layer of leather between armour and subarmalis would indeed be stupid.

Perhaps the Anonymus has unvoluntarily mixed this up ?

[John M McDermott]

The question I see is the marriage of a subarmalis and mail shirt into one defensive system that complimented and enhanced both of them. To understand one, you have to understand the other.

Starting with mail. Tests I hear bandied about have shown that mail by itself appears to be worse than nothing at all. It stops practically nothing and actually adds to the harm of the blow. However, were these tests on butted mail or did they include tests on iron mail that was solid and riveted? Iron is tends to fail by bending and stretching, steel by breaking.

When a pointed object strikes mail, it cannot strike its surface, but is channeled into one of the holes. The kinetic energy is then transferred to the inner circumference of the mail ring, plus the outer surfaces of the rings fastened to it. This disipates the energy to a much large area, as opposed to the tip impacting on the small area of a solid surface. Riveted or solid rings won't come apart at the butt joint. The ring must be broken by force by more or less equal force exerted on its inner surface, which is a hard thing to do . Iron would tend to fail by stretching out.

When you marry up a subarmalis under the hamata, you throw in another barrier to penetration. All of the substances mentioned: linen, hemp, felt tend to do the same thing; they present a tough fabric that further disipates kinetic energy.

To stop a slashing blow from a sword, the Romans added the doubling, which covers a large part of the area a slash would be directed at. I believe that the doubling itself was backed, not just lined, with a layer of the same stuff the subarmalis is made of.

I do not believe this stuff being said that felt is a naturally stronger fabric. than everything else. I think felt got used much the same way in Roman times as it is used today, which is as a padding, but not as a hard wearing surface. However, I can't prove it, so one will need to be made and we can see what happens.

Let's remember what DRB said, which is that the subarmalis was constructed of felt (translation?) and covered by Libyan hide whatever that was), as a separate garment