SoA Forums

https://allthatsinteresting.com/roman-lorica-squamata-armor

Good job.

Nice find, Dave.

Although the article says it's scale armour, I'd go with lamellar.  Presumably, the Romans used squamata for both, which has caused the confusion?

Quote from: Erpingham on June 21, 2024, 05:11:08 PMAlthough the article says it's scale armour, I'd go with lamellar.  Presumably, the Romans used squamata for both, which has caused the confusion?

I don't think the Romans used the term at all.

"Worn by a warrior in the 15th Legion during the decades just before Rome fell in 476 C.E., this armor was found near a castle along what was the Empire's eastern border in present-day Türkiye."

So bugger all to do with the part of the empire that fell 

It will be good to read a more academic treatment of this find in due course.

My understanding of the difference between scale and lamellar armour is that scale is affixed in some way to a leather or fabric carrier garment underneath whilst the lames of lamellar armour are affixed to each other without using a carrier garment. The web-article doesn't give enough information to determine what evidence for a carrier garment exists. Presumably the analysis gave some clues.

The article may suffer from some journalistic hyperbole when it describes the find as a one of a kind. Whether this may refer to the completeness of the find, the somewhat unusual shape of the scales or the composite nature of the armour with a mail section covering the midriff, presumably at the front, is unclear.

Adrian.

There seems to be a mail section at the front, but not at the rear - interesting.

There's a recent find of a composite mail and scale armour from Hungary, possibly Vandal, described here.

The pratice of incorporating mail and scale into a single armour may not have been so uncommon, at least in the early centuries CE. Martijn Wijnhoven discusses Roman mail and scale hybrid armour here:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martijn_Wijnhoven2/publication/333817322_Putting_the_Scale_into_Mail_Roman_Hybrid_Feathered_Armour/links/5d076a5792851c900442e2c1/Putting-the-Scale-into-Mail-Roman-Hybrid-Feathered-Armour.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiG9e7q1e2GAxUxaEEAHbPQCGUQFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw30JqRLqR3W0YRRZBoNA7Zz

The fragmentary remains from Hungary mentioned by Duncan above are of similar date (1st-2nd centuries CE).

These armours are of quite a different form to the recent find from Satala that is the subject of this post (the scales of which seem much larger and form a much greater proportion of the armour) but all together they might suggest that the concept may have been quite widely practiced both geographically and temporaly.

Adrian.

 

Incidentally, some of the exhibits at the already mentioned British Museum Legion exhibtion were the orginal corroded lumps of lorica segmentata armour from which modern reconstructions take their inspiration.  Not much to look at unless you know what they were used for.

One point that occurred to me regarding lameller armour is the material used for binding the individual plates together.  This would need to be pretty tough to withstand the cutting effects of the plates when the wearer moved.  Any idea what was used?

Quote from: Nick Harbud on June 22, 2024, 11:48:28 AMOne point that occurred to me regarding lameller armour is the material used for binding the individual plates together.  This would need to be pretty tough to withstand the cutting effects of the plates when the wearer moved.  Any idea what was used?

My understanding is that lames were generally wired together in lamellar armours.

This is an important point as the method of construction of scale armours likely affected their resilience in use. Experimental work by Thomas Hulit for his PhD revealed some interesting interactions:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/1006/&ved=2ahUKEwiYo76WpO-GAxUua0EAHZYBApQQFnoECBgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1Mc1kQTQ7Tln_6M3zgWJrD

If memory serves, Hulit reconstructed three patches of scale armour based on Late Bronze Age Near Eastern models. Each had a different construction; one completely comprised of bronze scales, the second completely comprised of rawhide scales, whilst the third was a composite alternating bronze and rawhide scales. He shot arrows with reconstructed bronze heads at them and assessed the results.

The rawhide patch was the least effective though still surprisingly resistant to penetration. The bronze patch was the most effective at defeating penetration but suffered damage when hit as the impact of the arrows forced the bronze scales to move against each other shearing the rawhide lacings used to secure the scales to the backing garment. The composite patch was almost as effective at defeating penetration as the bronze but the rawhide scales gave enough 'give' when the armour was struck that the lacings more often remained intact.

Obviously, we don't know how the Late Bronze Age craftsmen constructed their armours but the experimental work suggests that there are more complex interactions at work than might at first be imagined.

Adrian.