Roman Body Armour by H & J Travis

[Matthew Amt]

What Dan said. If you're really in a hurry to equip troops, why not just skip the armor? We *know* that even into the Principate some legionaries were not armored, and there is evidence that many of Caesar's troops were not armored as well. Why commit huge amounts of time and resources to something like butted mail that is heavy and simply does not protect well?

That said, I have not read the book!! We may be overblowing or misinterpreting something. I'd *like* to read the book, might have to wait for Christmas, though...

Valete,

Matthew

[Dan Howard]

I'd like to ask if the book covers the army of the Late Empire? A quick look through the synopsis etc. doesn't appear to answer the question.

Ian

How is the armour worn in the late empire any different to the armour discussed in this book?

[Dan Howard]

Do all of the illustrated soldiers have wrist bracers?

[sonic]

I'd like to ask if the book covers the army of the Late Empire? A quick look through the synopsis etc. doesn't appear to answer the question.

Ian

How is the armour worn in the late empire any different to the armour discussed in this book?

That was the question I was hoping to have answered. Are there late variants or did the Late Romans simply use a standard pattern that survived from the earlier period? Was the armour manufactured in a different way or the same? Since the later armour may have been manufactured in the fabricae, is there evidence of uniformality or were there regional variations?

Questions like that.

[ClaudiaCrisis]

The book covers the development of body armour through the Republican & Imperial periods to late Empire, to show changes in cuirass body shape, to reflect changing weaponry & changing combat styles. I provided the chapter by chapter synopsis to assist, as it does at least provide more detail than the usual synopsis found on on-line bookshops and book sleeves. I’ll try to answer some of the above points, although to expand greatly on the synopsis would end up rewriting the book on a forum thread which would not be appropriate.

Wrist bracers: These do appear on some of the illustrated figures, but not all. For obvious reasons they are seen on the archers - usually on the left wrist for right handed archers, sometimes on both wrists (as sometimes depicted in sculptures of Syrian archers). Others: some sculptures of officers (centurians) and cavalry are shown with smaller bracers, possibly indicative of rank. Again, obviously they would not be used in conjunction with manicae.

Mail: Most examples of Roman mail have been found as amorphous lumps of solid rust. It is not always possible to say with certainty if these are butted, riveted or containing solid, punched or welded rings. Some have proved to contain riveted links on x-ray examination & some examples have been found where rivets are clearly visible without x-ray. Use of riveted mail during the Roman period is not disputed, It is also clearly stated that riveted mail is stronger and superior to butted examples. However, it is also possible that butted, solid & welded rings were also used. There are known examples of these from medieval contexts & in the modern-day butcher’s protective gloves, so continuity of tradition may support the earlier use. It would therefore be remiss to not consider the possibility of its existence.
The reproduction was done in both riveted and butted forms. The small sample piece in the close up illustration was butted, but this was used to illustrate the degree of stretch. The section on reconstruction describes the production of rivetted mail (p 81,82,85). The diagrams showing how the links are formed uses schematic ring shapes, without rivet holes and rivets which would make the diagram less clear.
Both riveted & butted mail sections were used for the archery “test” and it is stated that the riveted mail was stronger. However, modern butchers will attest that butted joints are not totally without merit. The success of the mail lies in its use with padded undergarments, not entirely in its construction – on its own without padding, even the riveted links fail.

For those who have already bought the book, I hope you liked it. At least if nothing else, it will have sparked some points for discussion.

[Dan Howard]

Was the riveted sample a copy of a extant museum sample or was it just a commercially supplied Indian import? The latter won't tell us anything useful about Roman mail.
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=19189

Butcher's mail is not relevant. The point of that product is to stop knife cuts. The Romans largely faced spears and arrows. Butted mail is expensive and cumbersome and completely useless against these threats. Why would the Romans bother with this when the padding alone provides similar protection?

[Nathan Beal]

There are known examples of these from medieval contexts & in the modern-day butcher’s protective gloves, so continuity of tradition may support the earlier use. It would therefore be remiss to not consider the possibility of its existence.

Can you provide a citation for the examples of medieval butted mail you are thinking of, i'm not aware of any (that have not later been shown to be welded or riveted once x-rayed).

The only exampes of Modern butchers mail i'm aware of is made of welded links, the 'links' are formed under such tension that if they are cut they tend to straighten instanty (they are not coil wound). Might you be able to indicate the manufacturer of the material you were using as a comparator.

The section on reconstruction describes the production of rivetted mail (p 81,82,85). The diagrams showing how the links are formed uses schematic ring shapes, without rivet holes and rivets which would make the diagram less clear.

Unless i missed it somewhere i'm not seeing any detail on the riveting process you employed, might you be able to expand further on that here? Genuinely interested in how others are reproducing mail form this period so was disappointed in not seeing that and the tools created for it in detail.

N.

[Magnus]

Not sure i like the idea of using modern maille and medieval as a way to speculate what the Romans may have used. Especially when it would appear that its irrelevant.

I have a friend who is a member of AEMMA, a western medieval martial arts group. When doing armored combat, they had to get rid of butted maille because it simply wouldnt last. They had to upgrade to rivetted.

[Virilis]

Just received the book, seems to be interesting & controversial at the first look, lots of pics too. Let the debate begin :wink: !

[mcbishop]

Just received the book, seems to be interesting & controversial at the first look, lots of pics too. Let the debate begin :wink: !

A debate which will doubtless be furthered by the appearance of the Sim and Kaminski Roman Imperial Armour in the near future (Oxbow have it on special pre-publication offer). We indeed live in interesting times!

Mike Bishop

[Virilis]

Thanks Mike for the hint! Just ordered this book too...

[Graham Sumner]

Hi

I received the book last week but have not had time to read through it yet. In any case there are many better qualified here on RAT than I am, to comment on the construction and use of armour. However, naturally I have looked at the illustrations.

The dust jacket is a bit startling to say the least! While the front cover shows a re-enactor in plate armour the figure on the back... well, is something else! Both are overlaid over an image of the Ermine Street Guard. I guess the authors did not have too much say over what goes on their cover!

I was expecting some photos of arrows and spears etc.. penetrating armour (or not) but there were none. Also as my own book is well known to the authors Chester group I was hoping for a discussion on my suggestions for possible designs of the subarmalis but again there was nothing, No pictures of any reconstructed subarmalis either. I would have liked to have known if any designs were more practical than others. There was also no mention of Mike Bishops's article on the subarmalis which gives an explanation of how a padded garment would raise the front plates to angle each other rather than overlap as they do without such a garment underneath.

There was no mention at all of the Newstead lorica re-construction by Arik Greenburg or the first article on reconstructed mail by Mike Garlick. Both could have been discussed for their various merits or otherwise.

The colour painted re-constructions do not add much to the book. In my opinion they merely seem to be there to add weight to the claim that the book covers a wide time frame. I am not sure why the illustrations of Scythians are there when other subjects would have been more suitable. There does not appear to be anything other than the brief caption to explain what the paintings show, what evidence they are based on or why those particular examples were chosen. I would rather have seen more detailed close up colour pictures of the authors reconstruction of the Kalkriese armour being worn!

Re-enactors constantly seem to harp on about leather bracers in movies so it is surprising to see them on more than one re-construction here. The suggestion that they appear on various monuments is generally discounted and that what is shown are metal military awards which in any case are smaller than bracers. In the example of the cavalry what appears around the wrists again has been interpreted as military awards or tunic cuffs and in either case they are not shaped like bracers. The re-construction of the archer follows the 'Syrian' type whose ethnicity and form of dress is discredited by Coulston.

The black and white line drawings are excellent but many of those depicting ancient sources are probably familiar if you already have the Robinson, Bishop and Coulston or Stephenson books.

What is really a great pity is that the authors appear to disagree with previous re-constructions of Corbridge type armours. Therefore some re-constructions, painted or otherwise of what they feel is a correct interpretation of the Corbridge armours would have been both very useful and illuminating.

The photographs of the Chester group themselves with one exception again do not show a great deal of detail of their armour. The Chester re-enactors probably wear kit for longer periods than many others and I bet they have a great deal of experience of the wear and tear of the armour and equipment and tales to tell. They are great characters but at least from an illustration point of view I do not feel this book does them any justice.

It would appear therefore that the chief strength of this book is not in the tip of the iceberg but in what lies beneath, in the main discussion on the construction and demonstration of the merits of various types of armour. The text appears to be far more weighty than what the illustrations would have us believe. So therefore I await the comments of others, in particular Mike Bishop, with eager anticipation.

Graham.

[Gaius Decius Aquilius]

Just got mine today. Still reading it. Since I am an American I will make no comment. All we can do here is read and hope you guys in Europe got it right.

Ralph

[Gaius Decius Aquilius]

@ Nathan Beal - You asked about butted rings. Some were found in the Caribbian about 10 years ago, and associated with one of Columbus's expeditions. I can't remember the publication. No measurment scale was provided, so I have no idea how large they were. I remember raising an eyebrow at the obvious fact they were not riveted. Who knows where they were from originaly.

Ralph

[Virilis]

Just finished this book last night ! Very interesting info, leaning quite heavily to already availabe sources, like Bishop & Coulston and M. Feugere, though. Anyway interesting reading as an "armour-novice" like me. The weapon-testing against armour was a bit disappointing in my opinion, they tried a weakling 35 pound bow and made some assumptions by playing with the shooting distances of hypopethical higher poundage bows which in my opinion just isn`t that simple. Anyway, very interesting info for me without a deeper knowledge on the construction of Lorica Segmentata etc. Recommended!