Roman Full Plate Armor?

[SigniferOne]

There were a lot of technological innovations that led to the development of a reasonably comfortable suit of plate armour that the Romans simply didn't have: water powered trip-hammer mills, the sliding rivet, etc.

I don't understand how these arguments are relevant. It used to be argued by medievalists that Romans (ancients generally) simply didn't have the technology to create full-plate armors, let alone segmented, riveted full-plate armors which Late Medieval knights sported. And here we have not only literary and possibly visual references to precisely such a thing, but Dendra Armor which was created one or two thousand years before the Roman time. So what do these medieval 'inventions' have to do with full-plate armor? Are you telling me that the Romans were somehow inherently unable to equip their soldiers in it if they so decided to?

[Endre Fodstad]

I think Dan knows about the Dendra Panoply...a great deal more than you, I suspect.

[Dan Howard]

Not strictly true, as sliding rivets were used in the Gamla lorica seg (in the backplates - I've seen the real thing and there is absolutely no doubting it). As for trip hammers, the latest metallographic evidence that David Sim is accruing and publishing seems to show clear signs of having been rolled and, as he pointed out to me once, the finest steel plate used in lorica seg was lighter and tougher than the best plate armour made in the Renaissance (better than the stuff Maximilian gave to Henry VIII). It was just a pity that it always looked like it had been assembled by monkeys.

This is brilliant. I'd love to see the Gamla sliding rivet.
So is there any reason why the Romans could not have constructed a fully articulated plate harness?

[Dan Howard]

So what do these medieval 'inventions' have to do with full-plate armor? Are you telling me that the Romans were somehow inherently unable to equip their soldiers in it if they so decided to?

Even in Renaissance Europe only the most wealthy could afford a complete harness made of custom-tailored articulated plate. I doubt the Romans could have outfitted anyone but the elite in such armour (assuming they had the capacity to make it).

[SigniferOne]

So what do these medieval 'inventions' have to do with full-plate armor? Are you telling me that the Romans were somehow inherently unable to equip their soldiers in it if they so decided to?

Even in Renaissance Europe only the most wealthy could afford a complete harness made of custom-tailored articulated plate. I doubt the Romans could have outfitted anyone but the elite in such armour (assuming they had the capacity to make it).

I guess that's my question ultimately: do you think they had the capacity to make it? Does the crupellarius suit (and the Dendra one) show that it was possible, or are there key technological leaps that would still remain absent?

[Matthew Amt]

Well, the Dendra panoply and the crupellarius suit aren't really for the same purpose as full medieval plate armor. The Dendra armor is made to protect a man in a chariot from arrows--it isn't really intended for close infantry combat (as far as we can tell!). And it doesn't have detailed articulation for the joints, but is really just a solid cuirass with bands hanging below, and shoulder guards, armguards, and greaves added. It is not as heavy as it is often said to be, and allows good movement, but it just won't be as flexible and completely covering as a suit of Gothic plate (for example). The crupellarius suit proved to be too heavy for field combat, being meant mainly for one-on-one combat in the arena. Medieval plate armor was surprisingly light and flexible, and its wearers were trained to fight in it from childhood. True, it was *meant* to be worn on horseback, but knights often fought dismounted, and were very effective in all sorts of close combat.

Remember there were fully armored cataphract cavalry in Parthia and other eastern countries. Now, that seems to have been a mix of plate and mail, so I'm not sure if that counts as "full plate armor" in this discussion. And like medieval armor, it's only for aristocrats. Sure, the Romans could have used a mix of plates and segmented sections to cover most of the body, with bits of mail to fill in the gaps. No technical reason to prevent that. But as Dan points out, if you want complete protection you need to tailor the pieces to fit the man, much more carefully than the fitting of a segmentata, manica, and pair of simple greaves. You can make grunt issue or "munition" armor in a couple standard sizes, but it doesn't cover as thoroughly and basically the Romans were already doing that.

I think the real issue is that full plate coverage is a leap in logic which is generally reached over generations of development. We tend to think of armor as a necessity, and any gap in coverage is a bad thing which the ancients would surely be concerned about. But I think that's backwards! Since so many men fought with only for a shield for protection in ancient times, any protection beyond that was seen as pure gravy, BUT you had to take weight and encumberance into account as well. The legionaries we see on the Adamklissi monument are as heavily armored as we ever see a legionary, with thigh-length armor, greaves, one of the best helmets ever designed, and a segmented manica. PLUS the big shield! I really don't think any of them were sweating over how to cover the last few gaps here and there. More likely they griped about all the weight on the march! So the issue of articulation of elbows and knees never arose.

Bottom line, I don't think it was a technical matter. There simply was not a perceived need for full plate armor.

Valete,

Matthew

[Endre Fodstad]

Once again, linking the Versigny figure directly to the crupellarii mentioned once by Tacitus is very, very, very bad source treatment.

Technically, the steel producers that made the Kaman-Kalehoyuk steel piece four thousand years ago could have created "white" armour. Technically, the romans could have built trebuchets in the 1st century. Technically, high medieval people could have built steam engines and used them to power wagons. Often, the technological leap is as much mental and economical as it is technical. The main obstacle is often the availability of resources. If it some day turns out that the romans DID have blast furnaces and machined rolling/smithing mills, it will seem really weird that they didn't seem to capitalize on it if nothing new appears. Now, it took a couple of centuries from the first recorded european appearance of the blast furnace and before white plate started to roll out in really large numbers, but many of the ore-crushing stones mentioned in the industrial milling literature are fairly old...and there is no doubt that a lot of the roman plated iron armour we have has been made by good old hand-hammering.

"White" armour did not appear in large numbers and the sophistication we see in the late medieval and early modern period construction-wise in the roman period. Even taking Tacitus at phase value, he spesifically mentions that these crupellarii were inferendis ictibus inhabilis. Now that is a lightyear away from what we see in the late medieval/early modern period. In fact, it is lightyears away from high medieval early maille-and-plate combinations, or the caraphracts mentioned by Matt. A full plate medieval warrior was anything but unmanageable. If Tacitus' passage says anything, it is that the romans were aware of the idea, but did not capitalize on it.

[SigniferOne]

I would like you address what you guys said about the unwearability of the Crupellarius armor. In paricular, Endre has said:

Even taking Tacitus at phase value, he spesifically mentions that these crupellarii were inferendis ictibus inhabilis. Now that is a lightyear away from what we see in the late medieval/early modern period. In fact, it is lightyears away from high medieval early maille-and-plate combinations

I wonder how much of it is a psychological description rather than a qualitative difference. The Romans were someone who were really enthusiastic about mobility, were they not? Wouldn't it be accurate to say that they would've found any kind of full-plate suit unpleasant to wear in full combat? Yet I think we're using their reaction to a full-plate suit as a measure to gauge whether it was or was not up to par with its medieval counterpart, which seems entirely subjective to me.

One thing that was mentioned was the knights' comfort in their suits -- does that mean that the actual armor itself was lighter than what a Crupellarius would've had to wear? That would be an objective comparison. Do we have any qualitative measure to say that armor produced in the Medieval period was lighter than in the Roman times? Or were the knights comfortable simply because they didn't care to move as flexibly as the Romans did?

Technically, the romans could have built trebuchets in the 1st century. Technically, high medieval people could have built steam engines and used them to power wagons.

I think this equivocates a bit on the word 'technically'. No the Romans couldn't have built trebuchets, because the invention of the idea was absent, and that idea is just as palpable a presence as a presence of some natural resource. My question revolves around the question of -- were there any inventions lacking in the Roman period that could have prevented them from a Medieval suit of armor? If not, then they had all of the technology but simply rejected it anyway. What I often hear from medievalists is that the Knights were supported by all sorts of inventions that made them inconceivable during the Classical world, and that's really the premise that I'm trying to look at here.

[M. Demetrius]

were there any inventions lacking in the Roman period that could have prevented them from a Medieval suit of armor?

All that comes to mind is the generally stated lack of large pieces of iron sheet. But since they knew about forge-welding, there's no reason that they could not have made a breastplate from one piece, much like the "musculata" frequently made from bronze. Now casting a piece of iron that large hadn't been figured out yet, or so I have been told.

No footnotes available for the above statements.

[Endre Fodstad]

I wonder how much of it is a psychological description rather than a qualitative difference. The Romans were someone who were really enthusiastic about mobility, were they not? Wouldn't it be accurate to say that they would've found any kind of full-plate suit unpleasant to wear in full combat? Yet I think we're using their reaction to a full-plate suit as a measure to gauge whether it was or was not up to par with its medieval counterpart, which seems entirely subjective to me.

One thing that was mentioned was the knights' comfort in their suits -- does that mean that the actual armor itself was lighter than what a Crupellarius would've had to wear? That would be an objective comparison. Do we have any qualitative measure to say that armor produced in the Medieval period was lighter than in the Roman times? Or were the knights comfortable simply because they didn't care to move as flexibly as the Romans did?

Reconstructions, perhaps? Lightness doesn't really factor in because late medieval full plate has its weight equally distributed across the body. In my experience, roman "l.seg" segmented armour is actually less comfortable to wear, and feels more encumbering (especially on the shoulders) than late medieval full plate. Neither is any great discomfort, but I have a hard time imagining that a roman soldier would find properly made white armour much more encumbering than the relatively short-lived l.seg. We do not actually have any crupellari gaulish gladiator's armour to compare with. The reconstruction is based on a interpretation of a bronze figure that to my eyes owes more to the imagination of the reconstructor than anything else.

I think this equivocates a bit on the word 'technically'. No the Romans couldn't have built trebuchets, because the invention of the idea was absent,

The idea of practical plate armour as envisaged during the high to late middle ages was equally absent - as far as we know. Also, the possibility of large-scale cheap production of sheet metal seems to have been less than ideal.

[Tarbicus]

In my experience, roman "l.seg" segmented armour is actually less comfortable to wear, and feels more encumbering (especially on the shoulders) than late medieval full plate.

Not so with me. Mine was made by Matt Lukes, based on finds. The crucial thing he did was to make the upper plates thicker than the girdle plates, and the upper shoulder plates even thicker. This is based on the evidence. The seg is great to wear, where the weight is more at the top and gives it a better balance. The usual segs have even thickness all over, which makes it drag down I found.

Note - the thickness variations were based on the finds, and are not conjecture. :wink:

[Endre Fodstad]

We also experimented with that when producing our l.segs back in the very old days (although we only had access to machined plate). The test model did work better (unfortunately, the available plate dictated the less comfortable solution for the assembly line production; the metal had already been bought). However, I still found it less comfortable than the full plate I've worn, which had the added problem of being made for a slightly smaller man. As noted, the difference was not all that big; neither was a great discomfort, and the full plate most certainly did not make it difficult to move and fight effectively, as the Tacitus quote implied.

But I must impress that I strongly support experimentation based on finds and greatly welcome the effort ! It makes sense that the armourers would try to reduce the shoulder balance issue. Can you run in it without it sounding like an elephant rampaging through a kitchen as well?

If only there was more actual surviving textile armour available I could have indulged my favorite armour project without having to make do with late 14th-15h century armour as references.

[Tarbicus]

It makes sense that the armourers would try to reduce the shoulder balance issue. Can you run in it without it sounding like an elephant rampaging through a kitchen as well?

The noisier the better. The seg, the belt apron, the hobnailed caligae. Imagine the effect on a comparatively scantily clad enemy. :wink:

[SigniferOne]

In my experience, roman "l.seg" segmented armour is actually less comfortable to wear, and feels more encumbering (especially on the shoulders) than late medieval full plate.

Encumbering or not, it still is less heavy, by definition, right? Encumberance is a feeling, part based on psychology of the wearer, and part on reconstruction (notice how Tarbicus' experience in segmentata seems to be a very comfortable one). There's room for that personal subjective experience of the user I suppose. But, to get back to where we may be on solid ground, something like weight would be a more objective comparison -- the issue of whether a newer and higher state of metallurgy was reached by the medieval period (to draw a contrast, I don't think the Myceneans were capable of producing segmentata, am I right?).

I thought it's a common thing to state that blast furnaces were created by the Medieval period -- surely that would aid or improve the metallic qualities of whatever they'd produce?

M. Demetrius wrote above that there aren't any drastic technological differences in metallurgy in the thousand years separating the two periods. Does your experience confirm that too?

I have a hard time imagining that a roman soldier would find properly made white armour much more encumbering than the relatively short-lived l.seg. We do not actually have any crupellari gaulish gladiator's armour to compare with. The reconstruction is based on a interpretation of a bronze figure that to my eyes owes more to the imagination of the reconstructor than anything else.

Yes but remember the segmented armlets that some of the Hadrianic legionaries used to wear; remember the full-armored Sarmatian horses and many of the riders that rode on them which I'm sure you know a lot about. The idea of full armor was clearly present in the ancient period, in more than one incarnation, and what seems the most plausible solution is that the mainstream Roman army simply rejected it, most likely for tactical reasons. The Crupellarrius suit is just one more piece in the puzzle, but it's not like it is the only ancient instance on which to pin this case on.

[Endre Fodstad]

Encumbering or not, it still is less heavy, by definition, right? Encumberance is a feeling, part based on psychology of the wearer, and part on reconstruction. There's room for that I suppose. But the objective comparison is the weight of the metals involved, and whether a newer and higher state of metallurgy was reached by the medieval period (by contrast, I don't think the Myceneans were capable of producing segmentata, am I right?).

I don't understand the question. The blast furnace enabled increased iron and steel production in medieval times - see below.

Iron-carbon alloys don't have an enormour difference in density. The weight of any suit of armour depends on the craftsmanship, construction and thickness of the plates.

The classical myceneans (when they took up iron/steelmaking) or pre-roman iberians, or anybody who could make iron or steel could have produced l.seg (better comparison, I guess) in exactly the same manner the romans could have produced "white plate".

I thought it's a common thing to state that blast furnaces were created by the Medieval period -- surely that would aid or improve the metallic qualities of whatever they'd produce?

Blast furnaces enable (much) larger volume production of iron and steel compared to bloomeries, but only when run over an extended period of time because they take some time to get up to speed. When they are running, however, they will produce metal continually, whereas bloomeries need to be broken up to extract the bloom, whose maximum weight seems to be on the 300-kg level for the typical western bloomeries. I am uncertain about the maximum roman blooms found. This is the reasoning behind the line of argument that the blast furnace created "white armour" - iron-carbon alloys with decent carbon contents became available on the cheap. A lot of blast furnace-produced material was wrought iron, as the swedish 'osmonds' that appear in the late 12th/early 13th century (although the name osmond is from the english trade in the 14th century) in more or less standardized units of sale.

Quality depends on other factors. To illustrate:
When the japanese came into contact with portugese traders, they were making very fine high-quality expensive swords with martensite-hardened edges for the upper classes. The import of cheap, blast-furnace produced european-made steel - of regular but lower quality than the expensive, fine japanese tatara-bloom produced steel - eventually wiped out indegenous japanese steel production (according to lectures I've attended by David A. Scott, at least). Modern japanese tatara production was restarted during their modern reconstruction period for reasons of historical interest. I've been to the Yasukuni temple where some of those experiments were carried out myself, in fact.

If you want high-quality steel, you have to pay for it. Iron was "the democratic metal" as compared to the more expensive copper alloys. The blast furnace made iron and steel more democratic. Eventually, changes to the process made it so democratic it became truly inexpensive. But that was a long time after the roman, medieval or early modern period - we're talking the industrial revolution here.

Yes but remember the segmented armlets that some of the Hadrianic legionaries used to wear; remember the full-armored Sarmatian horses and many of the riders that rode on them which I'm sure you know a lot about. The idea of full armor was clearly present in the ancient period, in more than one incarnation, and what seems the most plausible solution is that the mainstream Roman army simply rejected it, most likely for tactical reasons. The Crupellarrius suit is just one more piece in the puzzle, but it's not like it is the only ancient instance on which to pin this case on.

Or perhaps, as many have suggested (and which I regard as far more likely), it was too expensive in the long run. Quantity has trumped quality in the past, often trumps quality today and will trump quality in the future. For the purposes of the imperial roman army, the l.seg. armour itself was eventually phased out in favor of maille, after all, and never dominated as the empire-wide armour (as far as I know). So perhaps that was the problem all along?

There must have been more factors at work involved in medieval "white plate" than just the metallurgy and production, though. The chinese have been using waterpowered blast furnaces since the birth of christ and were producing steel in large numbers by the 11th century, yet white plate didn't appear there either.