Making Pteruges (or at least trying to make Pteruges!)

[Magnus]

Yes, but history has clearly shown us that people do things that make no sense. Like that unit of pike-men in the U.S. Civil war. I wouldn't rule anything out, even though it seems unlikely.

I disagree...it doesn't show us that when people's lives depend on it. Granted, prototype gear and human error (like the pikemen) often account for folly, but these instances are usually the exception, not the rule.

Combine that with the sculptural evidence, as well as the knowledge that the Greeks did use linen and such for armor lends enough credence to the fact that the pteryges were almost certainly a fabric and not leather. At least the long rectangular ones anyway.

[MartinWard]

Ha but in all this why have you not thought about leather tents, leather shield covers.........Leather to a roman was an essential it seems, either tents or shield covers could be made with alternative materials, could they not? I bring to your attention a very credible reconstruction by the 8th Augusta of a subarmalis from a find based upon a believed shoulder section which was excavated (my apologies but at the moment i cant recall where it was found). OK this does not prove pteruges WERE leather but if it were the case that this reconstruction was indeed a true reconstruction, who in their right mind would attach non leather pteruges to a leather subarmalis.
Secondly how many of us reconstructed centurios actually choose leather over material???? have a look! Thirdly practically speaking if i were to put faith in my defences for real, i certainly would feel happier wearing leather pteruges than material ones, maybe psycological but there you go,any other comments,...fire away

[Tarbicus]

I bring to your attention a very credible reconstruction by the 8th Augusta of a subarmalis from a find based upon a believed shoulder section which was excavated (my apologies but at the moment i cant recall where it was found). OK this does not prove pteruges WERE leather but if it were the case that this reconstruction was indeed a true reconstruction,

The jury's out on whether that's a shoulder padding for any kind of subarmalis. Nothing definitive at all. But if it were, so what? It takes a lot of wear and tear from hamata rings or seg plates, unlike pteryges. :wink:

who in their right mind would attach non leather pteruges to a leather subarmalis.

Pteryges are not decorative. They're a practical defence, and I propose to you that because leather is unsuitable for armour, but linen and felt is, your argument is moot. Shield covers, tents, bags, etc, etc, are not intended to act as armour but to stop the rain from getting in.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that modern centurion re-enactors define ancient centurio practices, or that ancient centurios just had to wear material coordinated garments, especially when most of it isn't seen?

[MartinWard]

What i am getting at is that Most modern centurions choose leather over material. I personally find leather pleasing to the eye. I am sure in the real roman world personal choice accounted a lot for what type of material was used for whatever as well as money as it does nowadays
Leather whilst a good rain cover still needs oiling, so canvas shield covers and tents are still practicable once they are waterproofed. as in all our reconstructions, finds play the vital part in our chosen field of history. As we have no finds of the material items we have discussed then our reproductions are hypothetical to say the least. we do not experience for real the conditions of real sharp pointy objects being used in combat, we can not therefore logically put forward one form of defence as better than another as the battle conditions for use dont exist. as a modern roman, all our hand to hand combat has to conform to safe hit areas on the body, and our weapons are blunted at point and along edges. as the groin area is avoided during combat for obvious reasons, the defensive properties of the pteruges against a sharp edge cannot be tested, well not in combat conditions anyway.
Anyone can set up a dummy clothed in any type of armour and hack away at it and say well the test results were like this or that, this does not reflect a person in armour moving about while you try to hit them. Until such a time as two persons decided they are stupid enough to have a go for real at each other, which i believe is still illegal in the UK. then we can not test our theories, as much as we would like to. Actually i think the romans had a better way to deal with criminals than we do now, perhaps we should give them a sword each and see what effect and damage they could do to each other, better than watching footy,

[Tarbicus]

Multiple layers of linen is armour, a piece of flexible leather is costume. You don't need mortal combat to test that out.

[Magnus]

Ha but in all this why have you not thought about leather tents, leather shield covers.........Leather to a roman was an essential it seems, either tents or shield covers could be made with alternative materials, could they not?

Shield covers, helmet covers, tents etc. serve an entirely different purpose than pteryges. One keeps out the elements, the other nasty things like edged weapons. This is not in dispute. So whether or not something could have been made out of another material is irrelevant because it's physical properties make it impractical.

I bring to your attention a very credible reconstruction by the 8th Augusta of a subarmalis from a find based upon a believed shoulder section which was excavated (my apologies but at the moment i cant recall where it was found).

All this proves is that the shoulder was leather. It proves NOTHING about pteryges, since the subarmalis protected the wearer against chaffing, not edged weapons! What you're doing is reaching...for something that is simply not there.

OK this does not prove pteruges WERE leather but if it were the case that this reconstruction was indeed a true reconstruction, who in their right mind would attach non leather pteruges to a leather subarmalis.

Apparently the Romans did. Or someone who knows the defensive capabilities of layered linen which has been around for centuries at this point? It's not a difficult concept to grasp. You use what works, especially on the battlefield. Not what "looks pleasing to one's eye". That's inviting some pretty nasty lower body injuries from enemy weapons.

Secondly how many of us reconstructed centurios actually choose leather over material???? have a look!

Oh my god, you're not actually using that as an argument are you???? Next thing you'll be saying that hollywood armour is accurate!

Thirdly practically speaking if i were to put faith in my defences for real, i certainly would feel happier wearing leather pteruges than material ones, maybe psycological but there you go,any other comments,...fire away

I don't think you'd be happy if your balls got cut off because your pretty leather pteryges failled you since you chose looks over practicality lol.

You need to seriously read Travis Clark's website: http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lorica/parts.htm

That will take you to the area on pteryges.

What i am getting at is that Most modern centurions choose leather over material. I personally find leather pleasing to the eye. I am sure in the real roman world personal choice accounted a lot for what type of material was used for whatever as well as money as it does nowadays

We know what you're saying, and most of the centurions out there are wrong. The problem is that has been the status quo for a long time, but believe me, it's changing to fabric. Also, as far as we know, personal choice only affected items such as belts, tunica and such. Possibly pugionnes. But nothing that had a direct impact on a soldiers equipment's effectiveness. Using your logic, a soldier might make armour out of silk because it looks pretty. Of course, he'd be dead in the first few minutes of combat, but hey, at least he looked good dying! :lol:

Leather whilst a good rain cover still needs oiling, so canvas shield covers and tents are still practicable once they are waterproofed.

Sorry bud, no evidence for this at all. And your line of thinking is what creates incorrect status quo's like the majority of "modern" centurions wearing leather pteryges. And just because a lot of people do something, doesn't make it right.

As we have no finds of the material items we have discussed then our reproductions are hypothetical to say the least.

Read Travis's site...the evidence that we do have indicates fabric, not leather!

we do not experience for real the conditions of real sharp pointy objects being used in combat, we can not therefore logically put forward one form of defence as better than another as the battle conditions for use dont exist.

This is exactly why we go by what the ancient Romans did actually did! Otherwise you're just playing Hollywood.

I am not sure why you feel you require modern justification of something that the Romans used. The evidence is there, the onus is on you not to ignore it because you don't agree or see a need for it as a practical matter. If you want to be for the most part as accurate as posible, then it behooves you to make your impression follow suit. Pteryges are highly visible, and should be made properly. It's not like we're talking about plywood vs strips of wood in a covered scutum.

Read Travis's site, you'll see that the long rectangular pteryges were fabric. And that is based on evidence.

[MartinWard]

NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOO despite all the arguments/discussions, what i am trying to say is until proved otherwise by finds, nobody can be certain what pteruges were surely until proved positive, leather should not be ruled out. ok sculpture looks like sculpture, you cannot portray leather or linen or felt pteruges on sculpture as you can with a painting, sorry yes you can if you are an incredibly good sculpter, I do not dispute that linen was employed by the ancients as armour, but if you take the sculptures of the emporers in armour with pteruges, can you really say that multi layered linen (which is solid as you would agree) shown at the shoulders would fall like it does in the sculputure, ok artistic licence plays a big part of it and so i suppose does the fact that an emporers armour would be highly decorative and any pteruges could be a finer material and just decorative, after all its not tho the emporer is going to be in a front line engagement. If positive proof can be found that roman pteruges were linen and employed by front line troops, then i will change to linen. until then i remain with leather

[MartinWard]

ps.

subarmalis would provide as it did in later periods an extra layer of protection , it would at least stop mail links being driven into the body! this has been demonstated by the Royal Armories.Plate armour, the subarmalis would also, as with mail, absorb some of the concussive shock from a blow, chafing is a secondary with the subarmalis, after all chafing can be stopped with a simple sheepskin.

[Tarbicus]

you cannot portray leather or linen or felt pteruges on sculpture as you can with a painting, sorry yes you can if you are an incredibly good sculpter,

Textile pteryges have been portrayed in sculpture in a Roman context, the texture being clearly visible.

If you haven't already, you really should take a look at Travis' site:
http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lorica ... m#pteruges

[Magnus]

ps.

subarmalis would provide as it did in later periods an extra layer of protection , it would at least stop mail links being driven into the body! this has been demonstated by the Royal Armories.Plate armour, the subarmalis would also, as with mail, absorb some of the concussive shock from a blow, chafing is a secondary with the subarmalis, after all chafing can be stopped with a simple sheepskin.

Kinetic energy yes...piercing or slashing...no. Layered linen will however. The Subarmalis is not designed for piercing or slashing. And sheepskins were likely used for subarmalis...but not as a defense against anything but the uncomfortablness of armour, and the afore mentioned blunt trauma.

And yes, you really, really need to read Travis's site. 8)

[Magnus]

NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOO despite all the arguments/discussions, what i am trying to say is until proved otherwise by finds, nobody can be certain what pteruges were surely until proved positive, leather should not be ruled out.

Noooooo! lol

Listen, we DO have evidence for fabric for pteryges...not a lot for sure but, the evidence for leather pteryges is ZERO lol. What would you rather go by....a bit of evidence, or none at all? Cuz if you go by way of leather, you're really just making it up as you go, and while some things you can stretch and get away with (depending on what it is), this isn't one of them. As a reenactor, it's not our goal to invent things because we like the look of them...although, having said that I plan on making a greek style crest box for my centurion impression. Though I think I can make a case for roman's adopting greek styles. :wink:

Back to your point...the scant amount of evidence sucks, yeah, but it's the lesser of two evils.

[C. Apollonius Priscus]

You might want to check the photos that I posted here: .s107.photobucket.com/albums/m294/Cloudy0162/Villa/ and examine the closeups of the pteruges. The sculptor did a wonderful job but you'll have to draw your own conclusion as to what was intended. To me, they look like fabric.

[MartinWard]

Thanks for that Alan as you say wonderful sculpture i wont comment on my thoughts as people seem ready to shoot me down for my comments thanks a lot bud

[Tarbicus]

Thanks for that Alan as you say wonderful sculpture i wont comment on my thoughts as people seem ready to shoot me down for my comments thanks a lot bud

This is a discussion forum, and if you start making prescriptive comments like "the pteryges were made of leather" then guess where it was bound to go... :wink: :wink:

I get shot down quite a bit.

[C. Apollonius Priscus]

Thanks for that Alan as you say wonderful sculpture i wont comment on my thoughts as people seem ready to shoot me down for my comments thanks a lot bud

Lol, you're welcome. However as Tarbicus says, this is a discussion forum where ideas are exchanged. If you make a blanket statement, be prepared with your asbestos suit for the flames... Your input would also be appreciated as to what you think the material represented in my photos is and why. Fresh eyes and minds can sometimes see and interpret things differently. In the case of the photos in my link, it looks to me as if the sculptor (in this particular case) intended to show a softer material with texture, drape and stitching as compared to the stiff tongue pteruges on the same lorica in the other photos. Comments?