+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Reenactment (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Roman Re-Enactment & Reconstruction (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: Scale Armor & Accuracy (/showthread.php?tid=20474)
Scale Armor & Accuracy - PhilusEstilius - 11-17-2012
Robert.
This may be drifting a little off topic but I have made Segmentata from 0-6mm sheet steel which is what I think most would have been, and I would match the segmentata I make against any other of 1mm to 1-2mm thickness for it is all to do with how one makes it.
Scale Armor & Accuracy - Kegluneq - 11-17-2012
Quote:To take the topic full circle then back to the scales, I find it hard to imagine scale armor being 30-40% heavier than seg armor. Perhaps they were calculating too many scales, going back to the start of this topic on how the rows overlapped and how reconstructions before tended to copy that. Less scales = less weight (not that 3300 is a small number anyhow believe me, based on how long it took!)Reading back, it sounds like they are counting the weight of a subarmale on top of (or rather under) the squamata, and the segmentata without. The issue of weight is not clearly handled.
Scale Armor & Accuracy - Dan Howard - 11-17-2012
They are likely just extrapolating based on the amount of overlap between scale and segmentata and assuming that all of the plate is of equal thickness. Under those circumstances 30-40% sounds about right. It doesn't make much sense to me to compare the weight of squamata with 0.33mm plates with a segmentata with 1.5mm plates. Of course the scale armour is going to be lighter but it doesn't tell us anything usefiul. For a decent comparison you'd have to compare the weight of Brian's 0.6mm segmentata with squamata that uses scales of a similar thickness. It would be extra cool if you could test which provides better protection.
Scale Armor & Accuracy - PhilusEstilius - 11-17-2012
Dan.
There were tests carried out by the VIII Augusta group in Wales many years ago and even recorded on video of just what an arrow could do to all three types of armour Chainmail, Scale armour, and Segmentata. It was found that the arrow went straight into the chainmail then with the squamata the scales blew apart and again the arrow went through, however for the Segmentata the arrow had to hit at a precise 90 degree angle to even penetrate at all for in most cases the arrow was simply deflected by the curve of the plates. Therefore for anyone with Hamata or Squamata they most certainly needed their shield for protection as also even the ones wearing Segmentata, for a good archer at resonable range could also sort out Segmentata but not so much of a killer shot.
Scale Armor & Accuracy - Dan Howard - 11-17-2012
The mail test would need to be replicated using something resembling Roman mail. There is a whole list of reasons why commercially available mail is unsuitable for weapons tests. Williams' experiments are the only ones published to date with useful data for mail. Did the squamata and segmentata use plates of similar thickness? If the segmentata was 1mm and the scale 0.3mm then the results wouldn't be much of a surprise. I would love to test reconstructions of the three armour types using variants that all have a similar weight. It is easy to make scale and mail armour completely arrow-proof but they would be heavier than most variants worn on the battlefield.
Scale Armor & Accuracy - PhilusEstilius - 11-17-2012
I think apart from whoever this Williams' might be I was simply trying to point out that Segmentata comes out the better of the three types of armour from an arrow even if the mail is riveted or the scale has side clips they are going to give first.
Scale Armor & Accuracy - Dan Howard - 11-17-2012
Quote:I think apart from whoever this Williams' might be I was simply trying to point out that Segmentata comes out the better of the three types of armour from an arrow even if the mail is riveted or the scale has side clips they are going to give first.
"riveted" does not correlate with "historical". Alan Williams was the only person who actualy tested mail that resembled museum examples under controlled conditions. One of his test pieces was a genuine extant voider and the other was made by Erik Schmid. See The Knight and the Blast Furnace Chapter 9. His data suggests that properly riveted mail was far harder to penetrate with an arrow than many people suspect. With decent quality mail, whenever the links are stressed they do not fail at the rivet, but elsewhere around the link. The resistance to weapons is therefore the same regardless of whether it is a solid link or if it is riveted.
Here is why it is a waste of time using commercially available riveted mail for weapons tests.
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=19189
This article has a whole section on arrows vs mail
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html
Personally I think that hamata and segmentata were equally good at resisting arrows but the segmentata weighed less and was cheaper/faster to produce.
Scale Armor & Accuracy(update) - markusaurelius - 11-27-2012
I thought I would finally post some images of my completed scale armor piece.
In terms of research went on the basis of the Carpow and Dura original scale examples as my guide.
-As a result I obviously went with the scales being laid/layered like the original examples that started this thread.
-I used a thick canvas type backing with waxed natural linen thread.
-I used 3300 pre-made scales from DSC which come dished and measure 25mm long x 14mm wide. These measurements are based on original scales. They are thinner than most originals however.
-I decided against a rounded neck and went with a straight row construction. I felt that it was simpler than a rounded coif type addition, sat better to the shape of the body, and many iconic pictures don't show the curved construction. The Dura horse armor for instance has all horizontal lines even over the curve of the top. I also wanted to show that it was practical to make in this fashion so should not be discounted as viable method to make a reconstruction. I think a factor in this is the size of the scale. If scales that are too large are used, then they tend to stick out near the shoulder area.
- For the edge stitching I used the method shown in the Carpow example, and the Dura example. Both use the same inter-locking leather thong. I used calf leather for all of it, which I found to be nice and thin, but also very strong. The argument could be made that the original example used raw-hide and not tanned leather, however the Carpow and Dura reports are split on which one is right. I found the natural calfskin leather worked very well and retained its flexibility over perhaps rawhide once it dried hard.
- For the attachment method I decided that simplicity was the best route, as I originally made my own custom buckles for it. The armor flexibility made buckles impracticable as they could not mount onto something solid like plate armor would. I decided against the common lacing method as I found no evidence for it, and also noted that it would make putting the armor on very difficult since you would need to spend time either loosening or undoing all of the lacing beforehand.
In the end I went with simple hand made rings held in place with my own hand made codar pin. Late Roman greaves used the ring attachment method, and musculata from all period used some form of the tie ring attachment method. I found the tie thing method extremely practible in the end. The laces were easy to string through and tie, they were simple to attach through a hole in a scale, and were certainly strong enough to hold the sides closed. A made a decorative backing plate for each tie ring, and decorated it with punched designs, including stars, oak leafs and with inscriptions of Sol Invicto, and Victoria Romanorum.
- The area where the opposing rows of scales merged I used a simple leather strip to hide the seam. I decorated it with an inscription in stitched linen thread. The inscription is based on a modified inscription from a Berkasovo helmet. That inscription stated Vicit (lic)iniana, which was transcribed as a victory cry for the emperor Licinius. Since I'm a fanatic for emperor Julian, I decided to modify it for that purpose.
- I decided to go with short sleeves for the simple reason that so many mosaics, fresco and statues of the period seem to heavily favor the use of sleeve, or specifically short sleeves in this type of armor. The flexibility is excellent with the sleeves and they function well.
[attachment=5911]IMG_1929_2012-11-26.JPG[/attachment]
[attachment=5904]Profile.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=5905]scelearmorTopview.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=5906]SeamView.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=5907]Shoulderarea.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=5908]Tiering1.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=5909]Tiering2.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=5910]Tieringandback.jpg[/attachment]
Scale Armor & Accuracy(update) - Agraes - 11-27-2012
Excellent reconstruction
Scale Armor & Accuracy(update) - Vindex - 11-27-2012
That's impressive to say the least.
Scale Armor & Accuracy - Virilis - 11-27-2012
Excellent Markus! :-D
Scale Armor & Accuracy - damianlz - 11-27-2012
That is phenomonal!!
Scale Armor & Accuracy - Thomas V. - 11-27-2012
Awesome!!!
Scale Armor & Accuracy - Gaius Julius Caesar - 11-27-2012
Great piece of work!
Scale Armor & Accuracy - Flavivs Aetivs - 11-27-2012
I love that reconstruction. It looks awesome.
Also, I'd like to note that the Segmentata would be easier to produce, but each suit would have to be custom fitted to the soldier. I can't wear segmentata because the loaners are too big and it causes shoulder, back, and arm problems.