Segmentata - with or without subarmalis?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Definitely with. The plates will take a blow, but padding will prevent the shock transferring into your bones.

And as for not needing it with mail, I disagree on that point. You definitely need it to absorb a blow,
The mail will stop a cut, but will not absorb any force from a blow.

Same to a great extent with scale.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Definitely with. The plates will take a blow, but padding will prevent the shock transferring into your bones.

And as for not needing it with mail, I disagree on that point. You definitely need it to absorb a blow,
The mail will stop a cut, but will not absorb any force from a blow.

Same to a great extent with scale.

It's the shield's job to absorb blows, not maile's. Maile is just there in case you screw up. This is probably why the subarmalis is rather rare in Roman art: because other than for looks, you really didn't need it.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Doesn't matter. You will still need absorption under it. For when you screw up.
You really do need it and it isn't that rare in Roman art.

[Sextus Saturninus]

Mail is very flexible, that is why I mentioned being stabbed with a needle felt sword in the stomach while wearing mail without a subarmalis. It hurt bad, and now I wear a subarmalis partly so that does not happen again.

[PhilusEstilius]

I have made many segmentata over the years and have found that this armour is at times made by others with much thicker steel of even 18 gauge 1.2 mm, this in my opinion not correct for they are running away with the modern idea you have to have a heavy protection.
This is where the armour begins to have a weight problem as it is carried by the shoulders, indeed if made correctly this armour should only really be of 22 gauge 0.6 mm and it can also be made just as strong as 18 G if the plates are correctly stressed.
I am also sure that the plates may well have been lined with hessian ( a course sacking made of Hemp ) in fact I am sure that the Corbridge plates do show a kind of weave impression on some of the inner surface.

[Dan Howard]

Agree with Brian. Reenactors and WMA practitioners tend to overbuild their armour because they don't want the hassle of repairing it after every event. Historical armour was made with the understanding that it will need regular maintenance and, after a battle, it will need repairing - so it tends to be a lot lighter than we expect. Historical armour didn't have to stay intact through multiple beatings with steel blunts or rattan sticks week after week. Historical armour had to keep the wearer alive for one battle, after which it was repaired. Damaged armour is good. Damaged armour is normal. It means that it is doing its job. Anyone coming out of a battle with undamaged equipment will be looked at suspiciously for not pulling their weight.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Brian, my seg was made by you!

And yes, I would agree with all that. However, if your armour is damaged, most likely you will be too, especially, if there is no padding. under it.

[Dan Howard]

We have dozens of accounts where a fighter came out of a battle with severely damaged armour and was uninjured. Or where a particular piece of armour was damaged so badly that the wearer threw it off and continued to fight without it. My favourite is King Olaf Trygvason's Saga in the Heimskringla. It was written that King Hakon was hit with so many spears and arrows that his mail hauberk was completely destroyed. He threw the remains off onto the deck of his ship and continued to fight without it. He kept a piece of it as a souvineer to prove to others how much abuse it took. There is no evidence that mail at this time was worn over anything but regular clothing.

[agrimensor]

here is a cheap subarmalis, padded fabric, and the rest is in the drawing, use your body as a measuring table, the extra flap on the shoulder fold back. Extra padding.

[attachment=11272]subarmalis.jpg[/attachment]
good luck,

[A_Volpe]

Thank you, Brian, for pointing out this misstep I think too many of [us] make, that we assume ancient armor had to have been excessively thick, heavy, and near nuclear bomb-proof. IMHO it's a serious misunderstanding of what armor is supposed to and not supposed to do. As had been mentioned, there's this thing called a Shield…Supposed to be used in conjunction with body armor.

[A_Volpe]

Back to the original question about armor padding and what to do to make it on the "cheap":

here is another pattern to consider:

http://larp.com/legioxx/subarm.html

If you can, go to any "Goodwill" or second-hand clothing or fabric store, search through scrap bins, or, seek out old worn out clothing that has linen and/or wool, and utilize that as a base. It's probable that the [Romans] re-used old, worn out tunics to make padding, since the thing is going to get beaten up and worn out further supporting the armor. You can utilize scraps and strips from old tunics for patches and such, too.

You could also try to look for old table linens and maybe bed sheets (so as long as the material is 100% wool or linen, of course)

You shouldn't have to go with cotton t-shirts, although in a pinch they can be used as a very easy pattern to build on. (since evidence for cotton is pretty sketchy)

The closure (if you decide to have one) should not be complicated, and try to make it so that it will not get snagged up with your armor (like offset to the side). Some people have made a "pull over" not unlike a sweater, whereas others make a vest with either leather strips or fabric strips for tying and closing. I'd advise to avoid going with buttons or toggles. They can get bunched-up or snagged on the inside of the armor, and press against your body in uncomfortable ways but also that buttons and toggles are very rarely used by Romans. I'd also avoid leather straps with buckles. Ties are just easier, and easy to replace/repair. You could either put holes in your padding and thread ties through them, or, make tabs out of one end and sew them on. Whichever way you think will work for you. Just remember, as I'd mentioned earlier, expect to go through a couple of revisions.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

There are images of under armour padded garments through the ages. I fail to see how this flip flopping f opinions changes that.

I made mine from layers of linens and linen canvas as an outer, lined with a friendlier material.

[Dan Howard]

There are images of under armour padded garments through the ages. I fail to see how this flip flopping f opinions changes that..

In Western Europe there is nothing before the 12-13th century - no illustrations, no texts. People like me have been looking for over a decade and can't find a thing. If you have something that contradicts this then I'd love to see it.

[Crispvs]

The idea that armour can be effective without padding is a persistent falsehood. Just because you can find no evidence that does not mean it was not there. I used to be a tenth century AD re-enactor and searched hard for the evidence for gambesons/aketons myself, but in the end had to accept that the paucity of detailed depictions of men in armour from the period simply allowed no room for their depiction, despite their obvious application. In contemporary depictions you would not see it because it is hidden by the armour and in literary descriptions such as the sagas (which were often written down a couple of hundred years or more after the events they describe in any case), why would you bother mentioning the under-armour padding which everybody would assume was there anyway when it was so cheap to produce in comparison with mail which could cost the equivalent of a new house today? In any case, if King Hakon's mail was destroyed his under-armour padding would probably have been too, but you can be sure that it was the presence of that padding which kept him alive while his mail was taking all that punishment, unless of course you wish to propound the idea that a simple woollen tunic is magically proof against weapons capable of destroying mail.

As for suggestions that segmentata does not require padding, Mike Bishop has convincingly shown that the Corbridge armours MUST have been worn over a considerable amount of padding. He points out that when worn without padding the shoulders slope down, pulling the breast plates out at an angle, which in turn produces an unprotected gap in the middle of the chest which seems inconsistent with a well designed armour. At the same time the effect of the strap pulling on it means that the buckle on the breast plates typically deforms over time in a way which is not consistent with the physical evidence of the Corbridge finds. Conversely, it the armour is padded to the extent that the shoulder armour sits horizontally rather than at an angle, the breast plates are not pulled out in the same way and the triangular opening at the centre of the chest is not seen. The buckle also does not deform in the same way as it is being pulled straight across rather than at an angle, as the buckles on the Corbridge armour must have been.

As someone who wears scale I would also contend that scale, like mail *absolutely* requires padding, whether or not it is integral or donned separately.

Finally, this thread should not have been posted in the beginners section. It should be in the Re-enactment and Reconstruction section. Could a moderator move it to the correct forum please.

Crispvs

[Graham Sumner]

In Western Europe there is nothing before the 12-13th century - no illustrations, no texts. People like me have been looking for over a decade and can't find a thing. If you have something that contradicts this then I'd love to see it.


These sculptures appear at first to fit the bill. However the fact that we can see the garments probably rules them out as under armour padding! However the textile historians I have shown them too say they are showing padded garments.

They range across the Roman period and are worn by warrior deities, soldiers in action or just standing in attendance to the emperor

Therefore are they padded garments worn on their own without armour? Do they conform to an earlier Hellenistic tradition, in which case is there anything like them in Greek art? Or are they figments of an overactive artists imagination?

As usual take your pick ,have fun and continue the debate.

Graham.