09-27-2005, 06:35 PM
There is anecdotal evidence of subarmalia for Roman use. In Connolly's book, there is a depiction of an Etruscan warrior that he has interpreted as wearing a quilted subarmalis in conjunction with scale armor. The date is around 200 BC. Also, medieval warriors wore a cloth subarmalis. Therefore, we have a quilted subarmalis in existence both at the time of the Romans and immediately thereafter. It can be argued that the Romans would never have copied the Etruscans nor would medieval warriors copied the Romans, but the argument is a weak one.
Several writers in this comment have pointed out that the translation from the Latin word to the English word for "felt" might be somewhat suspect. I remember having conversations with Holger Ratsdorf and Bettina Maake, both of whom seemed to know their stuff, that the Romans did not have "felt" as we know it. Might the orginal Latin word have meant wool in some form, but not necessarily "felt" as we know it?
I have trouble with modern felt being worn because it is just not a practical fabric to wear in any form. It does not breath and both produces and soaks up sweat in great amounts. I recall a similar problem with the early suggestions that Roman mail had to be incredibly heavy and dense and weigh around 40+ pounds in order to be accurate. No infantryman is able to wear a 40 pound hamata, plus his other equipment for long and function in a combat environment. I know this, because I had a 40 pound "authentic" hamata and tried wearing it for an 8 hour stretch. As re-enactors, we have the ability to take nonsense and pronounce it as such when we encounter something that just won't work, in spite of what experts say. I think encasing the human body in a layer of modern "felt", plus other garments is just as foolish.
I also say wearing a layer of leather (in addition to the felt) is just as impractical. Leather does not breath, it does not survive water or sweat for long, nor is it kind to the human cooling system. Perhaps leather like buckskin, but not in the forms we are used to.
Linen or hemp, on the other hand, has none of the problems of leather. It breaths, it survives contact with water and sweat and can actually be laundered, which leather cannot. There is anecdotal evidence for the use of linen as armor: the Greeks used it and it was subsequently used in medieval subarmalia.
To tie our understanding of what a Roman subarmalia (if we are willing to admit they even existed) was made of to one translation of one word and ignore all other evidence is not a wise course.
Several writers in this comment have pointed out that the translation from the Latin word to the English word for "felt" might be somewhat suspect. I remember having conversations with Holger Ratsdorf and Bettina Maake, both of whom seemed to know their stuff, that the Romans did not have "felt" as we know it. Might the orginal Latin word have meant wool in some form, but not necessarily "felt" as we know it?
I have trouble with modern felt being worn because it is just not a practical fabric to wear in any form. It does not breath and both produces and soaks up sweat in great amounts. I recall a similar problem with the early suggestions that Roman mail had to be incredibly heavy and dense and weigh around 40+ pounds in order to be accurate. No infantryman is able to wear a 40 pound hamata, plus his other equipment for long and function in a combat environment. I know this, because I had a 40 pound "authentic" hamata and tried wearing it for an 8 hour stretch. As re-enactors, we have the ability to take nonsense and pronounce it as such when we encounter something that just won't work, in spite of what experts say. I think encasing the human body in a layer of modern "felt", plus other garments is just as foolish.
I also say wearing a layer of leather (in addition to the felt) is just as impractical. Leather does not breath, it does not survive water or sweat for long, nor is it kind to the human cooling system. Perhaps leather like buckskin, but not in the forms we are used to.
Linen or hemp, on the other hand, has none of the problems of leather. It breaths, it survives contact with water and sweat and can actually be laundered, which leather cannot. There is anecdotal evidence for the use of linen as armor: the Greeks used it and it was subsequently used in medieval subarmalia.
To tie our understanding of what a Roman subarmalia (if we are willing to admit they even existed) was made of to one translation of one word and ignore all other evidence is not a wise course.
"In war as in loving, you must always keep shoving." George S. Patton, Jr.
