09-09-2007, 06:18 PM
Quote:I would have stood behind the idea of functional armor, however, I'm beginning to rethink that idea. I am thinking that replacing cloth with maille (the basic difference in this thread, as I'm understanding it), would be beneficial for show purposes. From what I have seen, the method of attachment to the maille allowed the scales (or feathers if you prefer) to dangle more freely, creating a better spectacle of light and sound than did squamata in which the scales are attached to one another, and then firmly sewn to the textile backing.
I used to think that the feathers added strength to the maille. Now, however, when I think about how freely they hang, perhaps there wouldn't be as much benefit from the scales.
A squamata would have been pretty flexible too. Matt Lukes pointed out to me that most originals have rather large holes, about 2.75mm in diameter! Also some fragments from Dura Europos show that the lower connection points between the scales were not covered by the upper row of scales.
Most squamata reconstructions are made with scales with very small holes that are wired together very rigidly, makinf for a very inflexible armour. This does not seem the way the Romans made their squamatae.
Vale,
