The Lorica Segmentata

[Dan Howard]

indeed the reference I gave to Hamata and Squamata was simply to point out how the Segmentata is better against arrows than the other two types of armour.

I would argue that it has not yet been determined since there has not been a single test that involves a decent reconstruction of Roman mail.

[Eleatic Guest]

I would argue that it has not yet been determined since there has not been a single test that involves a decent reconstruction of Roman mail.

:roll: Have you received a reply yet?

[PhilusEstilius]

I would consider that from the point of view of simple logic an arrow point will go through anything that already has holes in it as oppossed to a metal plate that has to be hit at a precise angle even to be able to penetrate at all.
As I mentioned earlier it all has to do with deflection where the Segmentata is concerned, so I would say bring on any type of Hamata it will not deflect an arrow as easy, it is of course possible that a good Squamata may well do so.
It is one of those things that has everything to do with Ballistics.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I would consider that from the point of view of simple logic an arrow point will go through anything that already has holes in it as oppossed to a metal plate that has to be hit at a precise angle even to be able to penetrate at all.
As I mentioned earlier it all has to do with deflection where the Segmentata is concerned, so I would say bring on any type of Hamata it will not deflect an arrow as easy, it is of course possible that a good Squamata may well do so.
It is one of those things that has everything to do with Ballistics.

You would think that was a bit of a no brainer, but hey, who am I.... :wink:

[Dan Howard]

I would argue that it has not yet been determined since there has not been a single test that involves a decent reconstruction of Roman mail.

:roll: Have you received a reply yet?

Not yet.

[Dan Howard]

I would consider that from the point of view of simple logic an arrow point will go through anything that already has holes in it as oppossed to a metal plate that has to be hit at a precise angle even to be able to penetrate at all.
As I mentioned earlier it all has to do with deflection where the Segmentata is concerned, so I would say bring on any type of Hamata it will not deflect an arrow as easy, it is of course possible that a good Squamata may well do so.
It is one of those things that has everything to do with Ballistics.

If one arrow is deflected and another is lodged but doesn't penetrate far enough to injure the wearer, then both types of armour are equally effective. The chances of an arrow penetrating any heavy armour far enough to incapacitate the wearer is so low that it has no influence on the outcome of a battle.

[Dan Howard]

What they do in their discussion of the reconstruction of Roman mail is strongly referring to the work of David Sim in Britannia, Vol.XXVIII, 1997. Now if Sim uses Indian mail, I stand corrected. But if not, next time you should think twice before planting unfounded rumours.

I had to rely on an online translator but the only reference to Sim seems to be to justify the use of mild steel instead of bloomery iron since both had a similar hardness. Still waiting for a reply from Dr Klimpel about the test piece.

[mcbishop]

Now if Sim uses Indian mail, I stand corrected.

David Sim makes all of his own armour based upon metallographic examination of original examples. So, no, he never uses Indian mail (or the Pony Express, come to that).

He and Jaime Kaminski have been working on a new book about Roman armour that goes into the evidence for the manufacture of the various types, along with (exhaustive!) details of experiments conducted (using the facilities of Shrivenham) and lots of metallographic cross-sections. When a likely date of publication is known I will post it on RAT.

Mike Bishop

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Now if Sim uses Indian mail, I stand corrected.

David Sim makes all of his own armour based upon metallographic examination of original examples. So, no, he never uses Indian mail (or the Pony Express, come to that).

He and Jaime Kaminski have been working on a new book about Roman armour that goes into the evidence for the manufacture of the various types, along with (exhaustive!) details of experiments conducted (using the facilities of Shrivenham) and lots of metallographic cross-sections. When a likely date of publication is known I will post it on RAT.

Mike Bishop

I'd like a copy of that.....sure save time on speculation.

[jvrjenivs]

Now if Sim uses Indian mail, I stand corrected.

David Sim makes all of his own armour based upon metallographic examination of original examples. So, no, he never uses Indian mail (or the Pony Express, come to that).

He and Jaime Kaminski have been working on a new book about Roman armour that goes into the evidence for the manufacture of the various types, along with (exhaustive!) details of experiments conducted (using the facilities of Shrivenham) and lots of metallographic cross-sections. When a likely date of publication is known I will post it on RAT.

Mike Bishop

Sounds like a must have. Very interesting. Keep us informed

[Eleatic Guest]

What they do in their discussion of the reconstruction of Roman mail is strongly referring to the work of David Sim in Britannia, Vol.XXVIII, 1997. Now if Sim uses Indian mail, I stand corrected. But if not, next time you should think twice before planting unfounded rumours.

I had to rely on an online translator but the only reference to Sim seems to be to justify the use of mild steel instead of bloomery iron since both had a similar hardness. Still waiting for a reply from Dr Klimpel about the test piece.

He may answer in German, since last time I contacted him he said he felt he was not proficient enough in English to talk technical matters.

To follow up the David Sim connection. I looked into it, he did not mention any "Indian" mail. For those who are interested in the matter, drop me an email (not PN) for David Sim: "Roman Chain-Mail: Experiments to Reproduce the Techniques of Manufacture", Britannia, Vol. 28. (1997), pp. 359-371

[Dan Howard]

I received a reply from Dr Klimpel. A gentleman named Mr. Stehli made the mail. He makes mail for the medieval reenactor scene and no attempt was made to examine museum samples of mail to make a replica. Modern steel was used. Don't have any more details yet but I'm not confident that the test piece will have much in common with extant samples of Roman mail. Dr Klimpel sent me a more detailed report than the one that was published. If any German-speaker is interested in summarising the part about hamata for me, send me a pm with your email and I'll forward the file.

[Doc]

Dan,

It would be interesting to know what the outcome was. Once translated, could you give us a general summary as to how the test(s) turned out.

[martijn.wijnhoven]

To follow up the David Sim connection. I looked into it, he did not mention any "Indian" mail. For those who are interested in the matter, drop me an email (not PN) for David Sim: "Roman Chain-Mail: Experiments to Reproduce the Techniques of Manufacture", Britannia, Vol. 28. (1997), pp. 359-371

An online version of the paper can be found here.

Cheers