Plumata: Battle or Parade Armor.

[Doc]

I am just asking all my esteemed colleages here on RAT as to what opinions or general consenses there is (if any) on the notion of plumata being a battle armor or parade armor.

We are aware that some of these scales are something like 7mm wide and 1cm long with a thickness of .5mm. The chainmail rings are anywhere from 2-3mm ID with a 22 gauge thickness (these numbers are a ball park figure on most samples).

Some people are agianst the battle armor idea while others are for it. I remember a while back that there was some discussion of this nature. However, since then there may have been other thoughts or discoveries that may justify a re-examination as to the question of what plumata most likely was.

Hope to hear you opinions and comments.

Thanks

Paolo

[Marcus Mummius]

Does a plumata look very different from a squamata? Otherwise I'd be very inclined to say that the plumata was most certainly battle armour. Why would you make such heavy parade armour?

Are plumata scales indeed 0,5mm? Then they are almost twice the thickness of most squamata scales...

Vale,

[Dan Howard]

I don't think anyone has presented a convincing case demonstrating that the Romans even HAD parade armour. One would need to do this before arguing that one particular type of armour was not intended for combat.

[Titvs Statilivs Castvs]

Hm. The Praetorians had.

[arklore70]

I can only comment on the example that I have ever seen, and that was the Plumata that Dan Peterson has. It seems fully combat worthy to me as well as making quite an impression in appearance.

Smaller rings in maille can be of a smaller thickness and still provide the same amount of protection while also having the added benifit of weight reduction, which you would have to have for plumata with the addition of the scales on the maille.

Plumata would IMHO have to made by a more skilled, if not master craftsman since when working with rings and scales of such small diameter the potential to ruin rings in the riveting process would be a lot higher as well as more time consuming.

v/r
Mike

[Marcus Mummius]

I consider a plumata to be an armour that combined the good looks of a squamata with the superior defensive qualities of a hamata.

[Matthew Amt]

Erik D. Schmid told me about a fragment he had examined. He was adamant that the scales were 1mm thick but was also convinced that this armor was way too flimsy for battle use. I'm still trying to work that one out! Of course, in that case it would depend on the strength of the mail, which was presumably what he meant. But the scales were as thick as most plate armor, and would have overlapped as well, so no way a weapon could get through to actually cut the mail. The rings only had to hold the scales together. I just don't know enough about the physics involved! And Erik is Da Man for mail, so no way do I want to argue about mail strengths with him. But "parade" armor w/ 1mm-thick scales the size of your fingernail?? I'm the last one to call the Romans "logical", but that takes the cake!

Take a piece of 18-gauge brass about half an inch square and bend the top 3/32 of an inch back at a right angle. Let me know when you've got it!

Matthew

[AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs]

Ave,

I’ve seen many examples in statues of plumatas & Squamatas being worn, both in battle and when addressing the Emperor. Those are of course examples in art however, aside from pieces of scales found, that’s really all I have to go on.

I don’t recall quoting or reading any translated ancient text that said Roman’s had parade armor separately and independently of their battle armor. Conjecturally, it is possible, that perhaps, the senior officers had a second more elaborate set of armor but, more likely legionary had one set of armor and would have worn that in a Triumph.

[FlaviusCrispus]

Erik D. Schmid told me about a fragment he had examined. He was adamant that the scales were 1mm thick but was also convinced that this armor was way too flimsy for battle use. I'm still trying to work that one out!

Don't blame you — that sounds just plain daft!

I was once shown a piece of plumata. I had no set of calipers handy, but the scales were certainly not 1mm thick— more like half or a third of that. They were definitely thinner than the ones on my piece of "locking scale" armor, which were about .75 mm (I did measure those with a calipers, when I had the piece). The scales were about 20 cm long and maybe 12 mm wide, rounded at the end, ribbed. They were made of orichalcum (brass), but many were partially tinned. The underlying mail was corroded into a pretty solid mass, but the rings looked to be about 4-5 mm interior diameter. I couldn't pry the piece loose from its present owner/collector, or it would be in my collection today.

I don't see how this can be considered "parade armor" (and I don't think the Romans really had such a thing, not made of metal anyway). No matter the thickness of the scales and the fineness of the mail, it seems to me all that overlapping metal must have had a synergistic effect that made a plumata plenty effective against thrusts and blows.

I also got a close look at Dan Peterson's plumata at Lafe, and he gave me some details of its construction. He says he began by ordering a modern "shark suit" made of stainless steel rings that are welded closed; this type of mail is still used by skin divers in waters infested by sharks and other hazardous fish. The rings are very thin and rather light, compared with most reenactor mail I've seen. He had the scales made by a German company and spent hours on airplane flights from Europe to the U.S. attaching scales to the mail shark suit. The scales were originally tinned, but this turned dark after awhile and he had to remove all the scales, have them silvered, and re-attach them!

His plumata is lovely to look at (although it needs some repair at present), but it also looks to be a serviceable piece of armor.

[Doc]

Actually, I have spoken to Erik Schmid and it turns out that the scales are around .5mm thick. However, if you overlap the scales over the mail, then you surpass 1mm thickness.

Thanks

Paolo

[Emmanuel]

I(ve seen just one time a real plumatta, it's the one of Dan Peterson. It's a chain mail on the wihich he puts smalls plummata of metal. and its very heavy... 35 Kg and we are two to help him to wear his armour, and after he... runs with...

[Dan Howard]

Mr Peterson's reconstruction is only superficially similar to extant examples.

[Dan Howard]

Hm. The Praetorians had.

Evidence? How do you know that the armour the Praetorians wore was not intended for battle?

[Dan Howard]

Ave,

I’ve seen many examples in statues of plumatas & Squamatas being worn, both in battle and when addressing the Emperor. Those are of course examples in art however, aside from pieces of scales found, that’s really all I have to go on.

The thing that people here are calling "plumata" is the type of armour that consists of scale assembled on a mail backing. Not the more general definition of scales with medial ridges. I agree that the former is misnamed. It should be simply called "mail and scales" or even "scale mail". The modern use of "plumata" very confusing.

[martijn.wijnhoven]

It is not the first time that the battle versus parade use of the lorica plumata has been discussed on this forum. At the time Erik D. Schmidt, after having examined the plumata specimen from Newstead, came to the conclusion that it would not have stood up in battle. M.C. Bishop did not agree and considered the plumata battle armour, and indeed questions if the concept of ´parade armour´ can be applied to the ancient Romans at all.

As for my take on the lorica plumata, it seems to me likely to have been battle gear.

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... mor+armour

I was once shown a piece of plumata. I had no set of calipers handy, but the scales were certainly not 1mm thick— more like half or a third of that. They were definitely thinner than the ones on my piece of "locking scale" armor, which were about .75 mm (I did measure those with a calipers, when I had the piece). The scales were about 20 cm long and maybe 12 mm wide, rounded at the end, ribbed. They were made of orichalcum (brass), but many were partially tinned. The underlying mail was corroded into a pretty solid mass, but the rings looked to be about 4-5 mm interior diameter. I couldn't pry the piece loose from its present owner/collector, or it would be in my collection today.

Flavius,

Do you have more data on this specimen? Where is it located, are there any photos available, is it published, could I get into contact with the owner of the artefact, etc?

With kind regards,

Martijn