Lamellar Armour

[Conal]

Hi

I am soliciting opinions on the likely use of lamellar armour in the period AD300 to (or should it be CE300) say AD500 ?

Scale & mail seem to be represented but not lamellar.

Andy opinions please ?

thanks

[tlclark]

Lamellar plates were found in Dura Europus (mid 3rd C.) as leg guards. In art, lamellar panels are shown as early as the 6th C. It's hard to believe it disappeared inbetween.

Faventius has a lamellar cuirass.

Travis

[Conal]

I dont suppose there is an image on line ?

[tlclark]

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... t=lamellar

Check this thread out.

Travis

[FAVENTIANVS]

Yep! That's me!!! I made mine from this plans:
http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/cariadoc/perfect_armor.html
And works perfect!

[Daniel S Peterson]

Actually, there are numerous Roman small finds of scales pierced with holes on all four sides that could either be classed as "scale" or lamellar armor, and a close investigation would reveal some that fit into this time period. I vaguely recall there may have been some found with the late Roman ships at Mainz.

I suppose the point of difference would be that scales with holes on three sides and sewn to as base with the rounded side down in imitation of animals with "scales" should be called "scale", and identical shaped scales with additional holes on the rounded side, and requiring no base material for anchoring, would be called "Lamellar".

I would recommend calling this type "lamellar-scale" to differentiate it from the more typical lamellar armor of more elongated plates, often with iregular sides. I am not sure if we can prove if this type armor was worn with the rounded side up or down, or either way, at the wearers discretion.

Inasmuch as the longer squarish plates of traditional lammellar do not require one rounded side, it is probable that the "lamellar-scale" plates would have been worn with the rounded sides down in the same manner as traditional scale armor.

I think the only evidence of the rounded side going up is based on much later tibetan lamellar armor, but these scale plates are so elongated, they clearly are not imitating tradition scale armor as the of the Roman "lammelar scales seem to be doing by virture of their identical size and porportions to traditional scale.

BTW, what material is that lamellar cuirass made of, leather?

[Dan Howard]

I would recommend calling this type "lamellar-scale" to differentiate it from the more typical lamellar armor of more elongated plates, often with iregular sides.

The term I have most commonly seen is "locking scale". It is basically scale armour with additional lacing/wire to increase rigidity. It was common in the bronze age.

[Daniel S Peterson]

That makes sense to me. But clearly in the above posts, it is being referred to as Lamellar, and I agree it should have a different terminology if in fact they are traditional scales, only with the additional holes to secure at four points instead of three.

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

Yes, it's thick leather.

[aitor iriarte]

Locking-scale armour does not need a fabric base to be attached to. Therefore it is different from common scale armour, but it is clearly different from lamellar armour because locking scales are attached together by means of wire staples and not laced, like true lamellae (Moreover, the hole pattern on locking-scales is different from that on lamellae) :?

Aitor

[tlclark]

Another quick note on lamellar scale:

nearly all the byzantine examples, show the scales parallel and not overlapped side to side, only bottom to top. Presumably there was another row of scales underneath, unseen, that the scales were stitched to.

Looking at scale armor in Roman art, it occurs to me that it looks the same way.

Let nearly all the reconstructions show scales/lamellae overlapping side to side as well as bottom to top, or top to bottom in the isntance of scale. That's different than what the art suggests.

Any particular reason why?

Travis

[FAVENTIANVS]

Simpler to paint?

[tlclark]

Not especially.

In fact for years art historians typed these lamellar klibanioi as "antique" and yet they were clearly contemporary.

I suspect it might be easier to render scales that way, but I'm not sure why they would bother. There were lots of things that they did the hard way.

It's a natteringly little detail that bothers me, because none of the reconstructions in scale or lamellae look like the art.

Travis

[FAVENTIANVS]

I see what you mean, but, for example, my lamellae are set parallel. You can do the same with scales.

Haven't ever been found scales or lamellae together with their joint strings all laced?

[tlclark]

Here is a diagram of what I mean.

If we line up the lacing holes, the scales produce the pattern on the top. This is what most of the reconstructions look like.

below is how they would have to line up in order to look like the art. BUT! The holes don't line up.

The same is true of the lamellae.