The Hamata Doubler

[arklore70]

We've have discussed in the past at Rat the actual effectiveness of the hamata, but I would like to open for discussion any thoughts on the hamata mail doubler.

I would think that it would offer additional protection in the areas that it doubles over. I would think two layers is better than one.

But was it?

Based on some of the speculated fighting stances proposed by Peter Connolly, the doubler would add an extra layer of protection to areas most likely exposed to an enemy, to a trooper in formation; especially from an enemy that would be using some sort of slashing technique to inflict trauma on the legionary.

Has anyone done any studies or tests to actually prove or disprove that the doubler was effect in providing additional protection?

If it does provide additional protection, would a good speculative reason that it fell it disuse over time was due to the cost of making that much more additional mail as well as changes in fighting techniques and a ever growing emphasis on Cavalry formations?

Cheers!!

Mike

[Tarbicus]

As far as I can tell (and don't hold me to this) the main combat role fell to the auxilia more and more as time went by. Assuming auxilia hamata (no doubler) is different to legionary hamata, and with the legionary switching more and more to segs, it makes sense that it may not have been to do so much with the reasons you quote, but simply that the main combatants by mid/late Imperial times just carried on using the same type that they always had used.

That would mean doubled hamata disappeared simply because the ones wearing it (legionaries) gradually switched from hamata to segs (one theory being it suited an engineering role), while the main combatants simply continued to wear what they had always worn. Therefore, the more common type of armour seen in combat would be non-doubled hamata, more and more as time went by.

Add to the mix that traditional auxilia were made citizens by Caracalla, the traditional auxiliary recruit therefore became legionaries, and the appearance is that the traditional legionary changed armour, whereas maybe he didn't. There had just been too few "traditional" citizens signing up, so the Empire needed to make "non-traditional" citizens just that, and with that maybe came their armour and tactics.

Almost like natural selection; one species of soldier fades away while another takes over their role and fills the gap, and gains dominance, bringing with him his own traditions which becomes the norm.

Also, perhaps one of the traditional ways to distinguish a legionary wearing hamata from an auxiliary was by the shoulder doubling? It being more expensive it kind of makes sense, but that's utter speculation.

Just an idea.

[Matthew Amt]

Well, the original form of the hamata was simply a translation to mail of the old Greek linothorax, so it followed the form with the shoulder yoke. I've even heard that one surviving Roman shirt suggests that the top of the body was open and that the yoke was used to cover the gap, but I don't have any solid data on that. (And considering mail's flexibility, it seems an odd way to do it!)

We also have illustrations of Gauls and gallic mailshirts with shoulder capes or doublings, so my guess is that early auxiliaries had the same sort of hamata. It's only on artwork from the second century and later (such as Trajan's Column) that we see shirts without doublings, so it's possible that the styles had simply changed by then. (Though the old-style hamatae shown on the Adamklissi monument don't back that up!)

Assuming that a mail doubling was added to a complete mailshirt (i.e., no gap at the top), sure, a second layer of mail will be more protective. And shoulders have traditionally been more protected than the rest of the body, hence thicker metal in lorica shoulder guards than in the girdle plates. I'm not sure what fighting stance Connolly suggests--I seem to remember some sort of half-crouch, but that flies in the face of all the artwork, which clearly shows an upright stance. Doesn't matter, though, since overhand swings and thrusts will still threaten the shoulders.

I tend to think of the whole issue as a fashion shift. The shoulder doubling was the fashion at first, and eventually the fashion changed. It was probably more protective to have it, but it would also add weight. Always a trade-off!

Valete,

Matthew

[Hibernicus]

My simulated combat experience in a hamata with doubling has shown its effectiveness... plus 1" thick shoulders on the subarmalis

It did not interfere with arm movement.. use of sword or shield.

Nor did its extra weight come into play.

I also prefer a thicker leather underlayment to a thinner one.

[Alexius]

I agree and suport Hibernicus opinion.

Salve!

Alexius

[Tarbicus]

It's only on artwork from the second century and later (such as Trajan's Column) that we see shirts without doublings, so it's possible that the styles had simply changed by then.

Phil Barker in The Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome clearly shows auxiliaries wearing non-doubled hamata right through the 1st C AD. All illustrations of legionaries in the same period show them wearing doubled hamata. I'm not sure that it was to do with fashion. However, I don't know if his examinations have been debunked.

That said, all auxiliaries illustrated right through the Imperial period in the book, when shown wearing hamata, have no doubling, with the exception of cavalrymen of the 1st C AD, and standard bearers.

My idea is probably fatally flawed, but I think I may delve into it some more.

[John M McDermott]

I believe the doubling was backed by hide, leather or layered linen. I have one hamata whose doubling is backed with thick leather, and it makes complete sense.

I am experimenting with a second hamata, whose doubling will be backed by hide.

I have no opinion as to why the doubling got abandoned. But then, so did the gladius. Who knows.

I think that experimenting with a good subarmalis, good mail with a doubling backed with leather, hide, etc. suggests a Roman infantryman who was extremely well protected, and, who may have been impervious to harm by much of the weaponry he encountered on the battlefield. This seems to be correlated by the absolute confidence placed in Roman infantry by their generals in set piece battles. Likewise, Roman casualties in these set piece battles seem to have been amazingly light and any major defeat regarded as against natural law. Roman generals regularly committed their troops to set piece battles where the Romans where outnumbered many times to one and-won.

[Tarbicus]

I believe the doubling was backed by hide, leather or layered linen.

I'm thinking of adding rawhide plates to the chest, shoulders and midriff areas of the subarmalis I'm getting the bits together for. Rawhide beneath the doubler is certainly logical. Were the shoulder doublers on *that* soldier "saluting" (ahem) on the Ahenobarbus Relief really linen, or rawhide?

[Crispvs]

"Assuming auxilia hamata (no doubler) is different to legionary hamata"

I don't assume this, mainly because I don't believe there was any intentional difference between the mail worn by the legions and the auxilia. If you look at the stele of Caius Castricius Victor from Weisbaden, you will see a legionary wearing mail with no shoulder doubling. On the stele of the Raetian imaginifer Genialis, we see an auxiliary with shoulder doubling. I really think that it is about time that the idea of 'legionary mail vs auxiliary mail' was kicked into touch and forgotten about.

I think the truth of why some hamatae had doubling and some did not probably has more to do with the theatre of operations they were intended to be used in. The Celts were fond of an overarm slashing action with a long sword, meaning that more blows would rain down on the head and shoulders than anywhere else. It made sense to add extra protection to helmets (embossed re-enforcement, wide neck guards and brow peaks) and armour if the expected opponants were Celtic. If however, the opposition was German, then the main offensive weapon encountered would be the spear, which is used in a horizontal thrusting or jabbing motion. The added armour for the shoulders needed for combat against Celts would be less relevant here as the chest, neck and face would probably be in line for the most blows.
As time went on, more and more of Rome's enemies were German. Hence we see cheek guards getting longer and more 'face covering' during the second and third centuries along with he possible use of gorgets and I would suggest extra padding on the chest. It is at the same time that helmets get very deep and cheek guards very big that we see the introduction of small locking brest plates on mail shirts. Are these purely decorative, or did they provide added rigid protection for the chest?

With regards to Connolly's suggested fighting stance, based on the angles of first century AD neck guards, I think if he had tried to advance or fight in that stance, crouched forward with a scutum held near horizonally in front of him, whilst wearing mail, I think he might have revised his thinking on the matter before committing himself to print. I think that stance ranks with the 'scientific proof' which someone tried to publish a few years ago, which stated catagorically that it was impossible to draw a sword with the right hand from a scabbard on the right hip. Those of us who do this on a regular basis are well aware that the 'scientific proof' had not invoved much in the way of practical experimentation. I think that in this case Connolly may have neglected his normally rather thorough prctical experimentation and relied more on reconstructions on paper.

Crispvs

[Tarbicus]

Thanks Crispus.

In the case of imaginifer Genialis I did say standard bearers seem to wear doubling, as do cavalry.

Cross re-inforcement was added to the helmet, and greaves and manica added to the soldier's limbs in Dacia. How come doubling wasn't added to auxilia hamata, in view of how the falx was used and they seemed to do most of the fighting?

[Crispvs]

I think it is quite possible that the greaves and manicae may have been there anyway. Given the fact that the lining of a short greave was apparently found in Chichester harbour (an invasion period site, for those of you who are not familiar with English geography), greaves of this type may have seen much wider use during the first century AD than the archaeological record would otherwise suggest. Also there may be a possible Flavian period manica from Newstead (and I may be mistaken here since Curle's report on the Newstead excavations describes both the Flavian copper alloy armour from the well and the Antonine period copper alloy armour found in the strongroom as "armour scales". Some of these 'armour scales' were reconstructed by Robinson as a thigh guard, although Mike Bishop has shown that they are from a manica - I just don't know if it was the Flavian or the Antonine 'scales' - perhaps Mike could step in here and tell me).

Crossed re-enforcements for helmets were probably very quick to knock out and simple to attach. Mail would have taken much longer, given than the manufacturing process of mail would involve making wire in the first place before work could even begin on the mail. I suspect that sufficient supplies of wire for mail making were probably carried to effect repais on damaged armour, but I cannot see an army on campaign being able to produce mail in the quantities which would be required for ever soldier to get doubling. Maybe the legionaries, being citizens, got what there was and those who missed out would had to have done without, unless manufacture was going on for the campaign back in the cities of the empire (which is of course entirely possible). In any case, mail wouldn't be anything like as simple or quick to produce as the crude crossbars which are seen on the Berzobis helmet. For an army on the move, speed and simplicity may have been important.