LORICA SQUAMATA‏

[Cassius Tullius]

Cassius,

You have to be careful with sculpture. Even some of the Roman scales on sculpture are quite large. If you want to make something or have something made that is as original as possible, then you must look for museum artifacts, get the info, and reproduce it.

Saying that the Chinese TerraCotta warriors scales are large does not make the argument valid. You mentioned if the armor would tic off a centurion. Well, centurions, as you mention it were in the Roman world and thus you must use Roman data.

Paolo

In my reading, I came across an article on the web about a Roman Fort/Archeological Site. I think the article was from 2001. The article was about how 15 boxes of artifacts had gone missing. The writer indicated that finds of Roman Scales were very rare. I assume that scales wer among the artifacts that were stolen.

Obviously what finds ,there are, are well documented. There are plenty of pics floating around. However if squamata are rare then our conclusions in general may not be accurate. I think it is a mistake to treat this subject as dogma.

I agree that in architectual renderings and in reliefs, scales are often but not universaly depicted large. For example: the Cavalryman from the Arch of Galerius, Thessaloniki, Greece ( erected between 297 7 311) wears a lorica squamata of large scales. [The Roman Cavalry by Karen R. Dixon & Pat Southern, published by Routledge, 1997. Pg36.] The figure I am refering to also wears a spangenhelm, a belt, and carries a large round shield. His gear and bodily proportions all seem accurate. In the absence of "commonly finding" squamata it cannot be ruled out that some of these depictions may accurately depict loricons of squamata larger than what we suppose were in common use.

I don't have a scanner but I have a photo in front of me in a latin textbook. It shows an Etruscon Scale shirt. According to the caption the scale armour was found at Lake Trasumennus, in northern Italy and at least as of 1948 it is part of the Royal Ontario Museum of Archeology, Toronto. The textbook is dated 1948. The metalwork appears to be flat bronze whithout any re-inforcing ridge. The scales are at least the size, if not slightly larger, of those seen on the theatrical armor that kicked off this discussion.

I also would agree with you that I merely saying that the Chinese TerreCotta warrior's scales are large does not make the argument valid. But I did provide a link, so you can actually eyeball a pic of the Chinese TerraCotta warriors and see that the ancient Chinese Army actually employed large scales to armor the personal guard of one of its emporers. To some extent that does validate the argument. By highlighting the TerreCotta Warriors, I am demonstrating that a large squamata lorica is plausable.

By the way that remark about centurions was just a friendly response to the poster who kicked off this thread. We are after all just talking about whether a re-enacter could wear a lorica with large squamata.

[Tarbicus]

I think it is a mistake to treat this subject as dogma.

I think you mistake the nature of what everyone's saying here. Nobody is dogmatic about this subject, but they most certainly prefer to go by the evidence.

I agree that in architectual renderings and in reliefs, scales are often but not universaly depicted large. For example: the Cavalryman from the Arch of Galerius, Thessaloniki, Greece ( erected between 297 7 311) wears a lorica squamata of large scales. [The Roman Cavalry by Karen R. Dixon & Pat Southern, published by Routledge, 1997. Pg36.] The figure I am refering to also wears a spangenhelm, a belt, and carries a large round shield. His gear and bodily proportions all seem accurate. In the absence of "commonly finding" squamata it cannot be ruled out that some of these depictions may accurately depict loricons of squamata larger than what we suppose were in common use.

I don't have a pic of that, but if other soldiers on the monument wear, for example, hamata with one or two inch diameter rings then I think it's safe to assume the squamata is also up-scaled to allow viewers on the ground to see the armour clearly. You might want to take a look.

I don't have a scanner but I have a photo in front of me in a latin textbook. It shows an Etruscon Scale shirt. According to the caption the scale armour was found at Lake Trasumennus, in northern Italy and at least as of 1948 it is part of the Royal Ontario Museum of Archeology, Toronto. The textbook is dated 1948. The metalwork appears to be flat bronze whithout any re-inforcing ridge. The scales are at least the size, if not slightly larger, of those seen on the theatrical armor that kicked off this discussion.

I think I've seen that armour in another book (Feugere? The one with the plate shoulders?), and I seem to recall there's a question mark about its provenance and/or authenticity? IIRC, that is.

I also would agree with you that I merely saying that the Chinese TerreCotta warrior's scales are large does not make the argument valid. But I did provide a link, so you can actually eyeball a pic of the Chinese TerraCotta warriors and see that the ancient Chinese Army actually employed large scales to armor the personal guard of one of its emporers. To some extent that does validate the argument. By highlighting the TerreCotta Warriors, I am demonstrating that a large squamata lorica is plausable.

I don't see them wearing squamata, so I, for one, don't see it as evidence of anything I'm afraid.

The one trait for Roman armour is that small is a constant factor, where even all of the hamata finds at Caerleon are no larger than 4mm internal diameter.

[Cassius Tullius]

the later Roman army did not walk around in armour that was low-grade, inexpensive or technically backward.
There is no evidence to suggest that limitanei had to chunk pieces of metal together for lack of money or technical skill - they did not have to rely on McYver/A-Team tactics and hang pieces of metal around their shoulders because they could no longer make real armour. .

In Greece and Rome at War, by Peter Connolly, published by Greenhill Books, 1998. pg260; the author describes infantry ridge helmets. "These helmets bear no resemblance to the earlier legionary helmets. They are made of iron and are of very crude construction, the cap being made in two pieces joined along the crest."

The Intercissa does not appear anywhere near as sophisticated as the earlier Gallic helmet. You state large scales to be dangerous. Could you elaborate further. Perhaps we could nail down this discussion a little better by qualifying How large is too large.

I found it interesting, in Appendix 3 of the same book on page 306, he depicts an Aquilifier wearing a large squamata lorica. The scales are large as compared to his other depictions of scale armored Romans. The other depictions being of fine-small scales. It is based on a tombstone.

[Paullus Scipio]

Cassius Tullus said:-

I don't have a scanner but I have a photo in front of me in a latin textbook. It shows an Etruscon Scale shirt. According to the caption the scale armour was found at Lake Trasumennus, in northern Italy and at least as of 1948 it is part of the Royal Ontario Museum of Archeology, Toronto. The textbook is dated 1948. The metalwork appears to be flat bronze whithout any re-inforcing ridge. The scales are at least the size, if not slightly larger, of those seen on the theatrical armor that kicked off this discussion.

...front and back photos of this squamata also appear on P.153 of Russell-Robinson's book. In my opinion, the piece is an all too obvious fake ! :roll:
Though Russell-Robinson didn't say so directly, a clue to his suspicions lies in the caption "...said to have been found...." The faker took the same short-cut ( large scales) as the maker of the theatrical suit..... :lol: :lol:

[Tarbicus]

I found it interesting, in Appendix 3 of the same book on page 306, he depicts an Aquilifier wearing a large squamata lorica. The scales are large as compared to his other depictions of scale armored Romans. The other depictions being of fine-small scales. It is based on a tombstone.

Here's the real problem. Both examples you quote are artistic interpretations, both ancient and modern. I have far more faith in tombstones than monumental representation, but they're still all about how well a guy could sculpt, and the conditions he sculpted them under. You can't actually make any definitive statements about equipment from them, except to say "The armour probably reached to the top of the thighs and it was squamata.", or, "It didn't cover the arms."

There's no way you can claim anything about component sizes from them.

[Cassius Tullius]

In the Osprey Military, Elite Series, #50, The Preatorian Guard, by Dr Boris Rankov and illustrated by Richard Hook; on page 50, there is a picture of small/fine scales. In the description accompanying the picture the author states that scales have been found as large as 8cm by5.4cm.

The illustrator's interpretation on plates "K" & "L" agree with the architectual representations of large scale squamata. These interpretations make the the theatrical lorica look conservative.

I suspect that large scales handle blunt trauma and cutting force better than the smaller scales. If there is sufficient overlap then there would be no lessening of scale's protective quality from arrows. The large scales also have the benefit of economy. If the common infantry are going to get the cheap ridge helmets then why get fine armor when utilitarian will do? One of the big arguments for scale, in the first place, is that it is supposed to be cheaper than mail.

[Nick1]

I am proceeding with my project as pictured. I emailed Gagan at deepeeka in a very polite way and asked him if he could help me obtain one of these and make my custom project. I'd wire him the money.

I know he would like me to buy 300 of these but hey I am only a lonely buyer who buys medical equipment for a university. I can't afford 300 or feel like going into business.

If anyone else would like to join in on my little project let me know.

Before buying medical equipment I helped design and purchase all of the avionics for the F22. I have a couple of great fabriation shops I can turn to if Gagan turns us down. I know the best metal spinner on the west coast who can help me make the round fibulae.

DId my signature show up???

[Robert Vermaat]

DId my signature show up???

Nope.

[Robert Vermaat]

The large scales also have the benefit of economy.

But if if you lose a larger scale, your defences suffer more. A small scale lost is only a small gap.

Btw as to Hooke's paintings - I'm so far at a loss what his sources for these large scales were.

[Cassius Tullius]

http://www.legionsix.org/Newstead%20article.htm

Matthew

While you were familiarizing yourself with Legion Six you should have taken a gander at their Body Armor page. In their short article about lorica squamata it reads: "Size ranged from 1/4" wide by3/8" tall up to about 2" wide by 3" tall."

http://www.legionsix.org/body_armor.htm

Legio XX has the same thing on their Squamata page.


http://www.larp.com/legioxx/squamata.html

[Matthew Amt]

While you were familiarizing yourself with Legion Six you should have taken a gander at their Body Armor page. In their short article about lorica squamata it reads: "Size ranged from 1/4" wide by3/8" tall up to about 2" wide by 3" tall."

http://www.legionsix.org/body_armor.htm

Legio XX has the same thing on their Squamata page.

Hah, good one! I will cheerfully eat at least some crow, since the latter site is mine! In my own defense, I didn't say that Roman scales were always small. I just don't think that one can conclude that deteriorating economic conditions would lead to larger scales. MOST surviving Roman scales seem to be pretty small, anyway.

About the Intercissa helmets--weren't those all gilded when found? Doesn't strike me as particularly cheap and crude. I see the change from the spiffy Imperial styles to the Intercissa as mostly a change in fashion. Both types are quite functional and protective. So the earlier ones are made in one piece and have lots of ridging--not that big a deal, if you ask me.

An awful lot of the form of ancient armor and weapons is due to fashion and style.

Valete,

Matthew

[Caius Fabius]

....back to a different question, is the armor in the original poster's first picture made with leather scales?

[Robert Vermaat]

I just don't think that one can conclude that deteriorating economic conditions would lead to larger scales. MOST surviving Roman scales seem to be pretty small, anyway.

About the Intercissa helmets--weren't those all gilded when found? Doesn't strike me as particularly cheap and crude. I see the change from the spiffy Imperial styles to the Intercissa as mostly a change in fashion. Both types are quite functional and protective. So the earlier ones are made in one piece and have lots of ridging--not that big a deal, if you ask me.

Indeed, Matt. Which was also my point in this discussion, Angus.
As you so clearly have proved, larger scales were apparently not a sign of degrading armour skills. Nor were, as Matt pointed out, Late Roman infantry helemts more crude than earlier ones. Which was my point - there is no signs of Roman armory skills degrading in the Late Roman period. Period!

[Cassius Tullius]

Indeed, Matt. Which was also my point in this discussion, Angus.
As you so clearly have proved, larger scales were apparently not a sign of degrading armour skills. Nor were, as Matt pointed out, Late Roman infantry helemts more crude than earlier ones. Which was my point - there is no signs of Roman armory skills degrading in the Late Roman period. Period!

I agree large scales are not a sign of degrading armor skills and my comparison to late period helms was ill concived. However spangenhelms and ridge helmets,excepting those gilded and artfully crafted examples of the officer class, are not as highly developed as say the Imperial Gallic helmets. A case can be made that the use and adoption of these designs is but a sign of the barbarization of the Roman Army.

The more I become educated about large squamata, it appears that they weren't just used in the latter empire but throughout the Roman Period and may even go back to Etruscon times.

This will probably be my last example of a large scale. In A Roman Frontier Post and its People by James Curle, F.S.A. Scot., F.S.A. Glasgow, 1911; scales measuring 4" by 3 7/16"were found at Newstead. It was believed that they formed the front of the lorica and other sized scales were found with them. To me it suggest that the large scales were desirable where you could expect trauma and smaller scales were tailored in for flexibility.

http://www.curlesnewstead.org.uk/159.htm



I think this supports the contention that the Arch of Galerius figures may be viewed as faithful/accurate representations. Notice the figure all the way to the right. You can actually see fine detail of the man's tunic. The proportionality of each figure suggest that the artist was paying attention to detail. This is early 4th/ late 3rd century.
http://www.learn.columbia.edu/roman/htm ... l27_96.htm


This example is from the column of Marcus Aurelius, 2nd century.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/ro ... y_04.shtml

[Robert Vermaat]

I agree large scales are not a sign of degrading armor skills and my comparison to late period helms was ill concived.

Whoo-oo!

However spangenhelms and ridge helmets,excepting those gilded and artfully crafted examples of the officer class, are not as highly developed as say the Imperial Gallic helmets. A case can be made that the use and adoption of these designs is but a sign of the barbarization of the Roman Army.

Ah, now you spoilt it.
Matt was referring to the fact that each (but for one) of all the remains of Late Roman helmets found, cavalry or infantry types, were silvered, up to the smallest rivet. Nothing to do with officer class.

How do you mean, not as highly developed as the Imperial Gallic helmets? Although some helmet types are simpler of construction or less decorated, that design change probably had a reason that most probably had its background in economical and strategic reasons, such as guaranteeing a steady supply. A Berkasovo/Burgh Castle type is by no means 'less' developed than an Imperial Gallic helmet. It's simpler, sure, but not backward, just easier to produce.

Lastly, while Spangenhelme probably originated along the Danube, Ridge helmets were most probably developed among the Sassanid Persians. Not exactly barbarians.

But besides that, many non-Roman weapons (slings, bows, helemts, swords) were adopted by the Roman army long, long before anyone would even contemplate to look for any 'barbarization'. This was a standard Roman practise and no proof for any 'barbarization' of the Late Roman army.

I think this supports the contention that the Arch of Galerius figures may be viewed as faithful/accurate representations. Notice the figure all the way to the right. You can actually see fine detail of the man's tunic. The proportionality of each figure suggest that the artist was paying attention to detail. This is early 4th/ late 3rd century.

Late 3rd. Well, some details are accurate enough, but some clearly aren't. For one, the scutum has a weird grip, more like that of a hoplon. Second, the squamata is clearly made from smaller scales than depicted. Why? If you ever had seen a real squamata made of such large scales, you would recognise that it's stifness (which increses with larger scales) would not allow it to look like this. The soldiers seem dressed in tunics rathwer than scale armour, the way the folds fall!

And if you say that the tunic of the man to the right (Galerius?) shows a lot of detail you're of course right. But when you say that "proportionality of each figure suggest that the artist was paying attention to detail", I really hope you did not refer to the fact that the man is twice as large as the soldiers! :wink: