Posts: 97
Threads: 22
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
0
Specifically I'm wondering If there's any more information on this piece.
[url:bojdlohr]http://www.roman-artifacts.com/Armor%20Fragments%20&%20Attachments/Lorica%20Hamata%20Armor%20Fragment/lorica%20hamata%20fragment.htm[/url]
I'm sort of curious about it because I don't remember ever seeing any chainmail this thick before. Unfortunately I haven't been able to figure out anything about it, time period, what sort of troops used it, whether it was even Roman in the first place, etc.
Henry O.
Posts: 1,667
Threads: 288
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation:
1
On a few occasions I discussed wire gauge with one of the most expert people Erik Schmid. I asked him why the gauge appeared so beefy to which he replied, corrosion and oxidation build up. In other words, they are probably thinner but because they have rust and other patinas covering them, the appear thicker.
Most Roman mail I am aware of is in the range of 5mm to 6mm internal diameter (ID) for the links. Smaller have been found on mail interwoven with scales. Furthermore, the pattern used is 4 in 1. Thus if you have an ID of 6mm at most then 4 links through that cannot be greater than 6mm. According to that website the ID is 6.5mm and each link is 2mm thick. Thus trying to put 4 links at that thickness would never fit because the hole has to be greater than 8mm ID. The reason I say greater is because the links will have some space in between them.
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
Paolo
Posts: 97
Threads: 22
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
0
The rings are assembled in a square which means that a 6.5 inside diameter would be just barely wide enough to fit. A small portion of the extra size may be the result of rust, but compared to average rings 1-1.5 mm wide they are still pretty huge.
Henry O.
Posts: 1,667
Threads: 288
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation:
1
If you take the upper limit as being 1.5 mm thick, then 4 would make it 6mm worth of necessary space. Having 6.5 would make it fit rather snug with some room to move about. As reported each link thickness is 2mm thus 4 links makes a total of 8mm worth of metal in a 6.5mm hole. This is not counting the small space in between each link. I do not think it would fit at all.
Now, using your numbers, if the original links are 1.5mm thick, then .5mm of corrosion makes sense as a whole so the entire structure seems plausible. One of the links has a rivet missing. It is possible it was never put in or it fell out. However, as corrosion built up the rings were getting thicker and increased the force on the rivet and it broke/popped off.
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
Paolo
Posts: 723
Threads: 15
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation:
1
If you take the upper limit as being 1.5 mm thick, then 4 would make it 6mm worth of necessary space. Having 6.5 would make it fit rather snug with some room to move about. As reported each link thickness is 2mm thus 4 links makes a total of 8mm worth of metal in a 6.5mm hole. This is not counting the small space in between each link. I do not think it would fit at all.
Re-read rrgg's post. The four wires pass through the hole in a two by two square, not line abreast. Four 2 mm thick wires will fit in a 6 mm diameter opening. It'd be snug and a struggle to assemble an entire garment, but it's physically possible.
"Fugit irreparabile tempus" (Irrecoverable time glides away) Virgil
Ron Andrea
Posts: 1,667
Threads: 288
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation:
1
Ron, I do not think that you an assemble mail in patterns the way you suggest. When put together in the 4 to 1 pattern, they sit a certain way and appear like a square. The fact is 4 of those things have to fit in a hole whose diameter is less than the amount of material being put in.
If you look at one of the pictures on the far left you will notice a ring that is not connected except on one side. You can see that relative to the other mail links, it is much smaller. This suggests what I was saying about the buildup of corrosion. The links, I doubt are 2mm thick. They are now with corrosion. However, if you look at the link that I just mentioned, it is thinner.
The other links being locked and close to each other leave little space for aything. Therefore, rust build up tends to fuse certain parts and allow for an exaggerated amount of material to collect.
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
Paolo
Posts: 137
Threads: 14
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
My curiosity is not piqued by the size, but by the method of construction. It looks like that mail is all riveted rings. Not alternating punched rings and riveted.
Non mihi, non tibi, sed nobis
Joe Patt (Paruzynski)
Milton, FL, USA
Posts: 1,667
Threads: 288
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation:
1
I was thinking the same thing only that I am not too sure to make a general statement like that since many of the rivets are not visible.
I'll take another look.
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
Paolo
Posts: 137
Threads: 14
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
I just now noticed in the description that there is no evidence that the mail is Roman in manufacture due to there being no punched rings.
Non mihi, non tibi, sed nobis
Joe Patt (Paruzynski)
Milton, FL, USA
Posts: 13,279
Threads: 102
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
3
Yep!
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
Iron can expand up to four times its original volume as it oxidises. The high surface area of mail makes it particularly susceptible to this. Unless the mail is unusually well preserved, it is a waste of time measuring the thickness of extant mail links because it doesn't tell us anything useful.
Posts: 97
Threads: 22
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
0
If it expanded 4 times it's original size there wouldn't really be identifiable rings, just a shapeless blob.
Henry O.
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
Quote:If it expanded 4 times it's original size there wouldn't really be identifiable rings, just a shapeless blob.
I said "up to four times". Unless you know how much it has oxidised since it was put in the ground (and how much "restoration" it has undergone since it was dug up) you can't determine its original thickness.
Posts: 1,667
Threads: 288
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation:
1
Thank you Dan. You have eloquently put what I was trying to point out.
Those links are quite thick. That is why when I read those dimensions my immediate response was what I originally posted.
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
Paolo
|
