Thin iron/steel sheets.

[Damianus Albus]

I have a question and I hope someone can give me good answer for this or correct me.

So Romans were able to make so thin iron and steel sheets which have quite similar thickness no matter if found in Brittania or Balkans which is on average 0,8 - 1,4mm. What's more, they lack of any forging sings on the inside (why would Romans clear them if the left for example hammer signs on helmets?)

As far as I know, Sim and Kaminski tried many various hammering techniques to achieve such thin sheet without signs of hammering.

They fail. They were able to get 4mm sheet with marks after forging becasue. Sometimes biggers, sometimes smaller, but always.

Finally they came up with idea of stone/metal rollers which would work like a quern by using crank (which was know for sure in IV AD).
It was the only way they were able to receive thin sheet without ani signs from hammer.

Of course it's jus a theory becasue we don't have any evidences that romans had used such rollers.

So here is a question. Are you familiar with any other way, theory how Romans could get thin sheets in a efficient way which can provide sheets of a 0,5mm thickness?

Even if we assume that they could use such rollers like Sim and Kaminski around III/IV AD, how did they make segmatatas before?

[Dan Howard]

IMO rolling mills is the only way to produce sheet metal without leaving hammer marks.

[Crispianus]

Possibly finished with a set Hammer, a hammer with a large flat face that is stuck by another, it might be that the striking hammer was a large trip hammer... I also think the skill of the metal workers can be seriously under estimated...

[Damianus Albus]

So... In other words we can only guess how did they make it?

[Crispianus]

So... In other words we can only guess how did they make it?

Well I think both methods are viable, the problem is size I think some of the primtive industrial machinery I've seen is huge although its not that old, if you only have two guys working with hammers (say a heavy sledge hammer) theres a limit on what you can achieve, but if you had a hammer larger then a man could use you could move so much more metal with it in a much larger area which in combination with a set hammer may give the impression of no hammer strikes, of course such a thing would have to be powered by water or other means....

   

However All Iron would be initially forged with a hammer of some form, basically its only down to finishing...

the problem I see with rollers is the iron introduced into the rollers has to be pretty evenly forged to start with, otherwise it would snake all over the place (though a guide immediatly behind the rollers may prevent this somewhat and hand cranking would help) and would tend to make it longer rather then wider... though it would likely be easier to adjust thickness by having one roller adjustable by the use of shims(to control the thickness) and wedges (to clamp the roller)....

perhaps a combination of both was used...




Just some thoughts, not written in stone...

[Damianus Albus]

The whole point os this thread is that I want to investigate if Romans could make fast and cheap iron musculatas.

We know they definetly had to use some type of technology which did not left hammer signs on segmentatas.
But segmentata is made from small pieces. Were they made small from the beggining or maybe a bigger plates which were cut for strips? I don't know.

Im just looking for some theory which would lead to technological leap during Empire.
Technology was know before empire as we can see grey (iron or steel) musculata on a mosaic from about 80yrs BC.
But due to lack of technology it was diffucult, time and money consuming to make musculata from ingot opposite to small strips of segmentata.

Yet it was republic and principate. I can imagine that during imperial period technology could move forward along side with imperial manufactures.
No more hitting with hand-hammer, let's make (for example) 50kg hammer mounted on some kind lever, or even heavier with use of a watermill, becasue why wouldnt they?

If rollers, maybe they had found out how to make wider plates, not just longer?

I don't know that but during imperial period ways of supplementing military equipment had to be way faster. I can't imagine 2 guys hitting one ingot all day long as it required skills while pulling lever requires mostly man power.

Im just trying to find out if there was possibility that at some point musculatas were way cheaper and faster to make than any other armor (like Sim and Kaminski claim) and Im trying to combine this with a sudden increase of musculatas in art (sculptures, paintings etc).

Just a theory...

And yes, you are right. First, you need to make an 4-5mm sheet from an ingot using hammer (question is was it done fully manually - I doubt that - or using some heavy hammers to speed it up). Once done, such 4mm sheet could go through rollers to convert into 0,5-1,5mm sheet.

So in the end, we know they did this somehow, yet the question stand how, on what scale, how fast and how effective.

[Dan Howard]

The whole point os this thread is that I want to investigate if Romans could make fast and cheap iron musculatas

This is not a good way to formulate an argument because you have a predetermined conclusion before beginning the investigation. A case can be made that the ancients COULD have made all sort of things but we know that they didn't. You need to firstly prove that iron musculatas were actually used by the Romans. Then you need to prove that they produced them quickly and cheaply. Only then should you try and argue how they might have done this.

[Damianus Albus]

The whole point os this thread is that I want to investigate if Romans could make fast and cheap iron musculatas

This is not a good way to formulate an argument because you have a predetermined conclusion before beginning the investigation. A case can be made that the ancients COULD have made all sort of things but we know that they didn't. You need to firstly prove that iron musculatas were actually used by the Romans. Then you need to prove that they produced them quickly and cheaply. Only then should you try and argue how they might have done this.

(I already made an investigation and I came to few conclusion).

The first point is simple. We have for example mosaic which show grey musculata. If grey, it has to be iron.
Plus we have 2 iron musculatas from 4 BC. So if they could be made in 4BC, they also coule be made 800yrs later.

The question isnt if they could make them becasue they could. The question is if they could make them cheap and fast to equip masses.

So the question stands still. In late empire we see a big amount of musculatae on reliefs. They are not republican/early imperial musculatae with, for example, Medusa theme. They lack of any decoration, they are plain, almost no muscles visible. Completly different from what we could see before.
So this struggles me if they could make just simple musculatas. D. Sim and J. Kaminski claim that musculata required the lowest amount of material, work and cost among all others. So the question remains, if Romans where able to make cheap iron sheets. If so (and I think so) how they did it.
We know for fact that remaining parts of segmentata lack of forging sings. So do we know how did they make so thin strips without any forging sings? I don't know it and I want to find out, becasue making 1mm strips just by hammering is kinda impossible or at least very time consuming and ineffective so probably they could use rollers? That's the one possilibity. If so, could they develop them to make bigger parts of iron? Sheets? I don't know and that's why I'm trying to figure out but according to Sim and Kaminski it was way cheaper than other types and according to Leonid Tarassuk and Claude Blair, musculata has became very popular along regular soldiers in 4 and 5 AD.

[Damianus Albus]

The first point is simple. We have for example mosaic which show grey musculata. If grey, it has to be iron.

Pigments change colour over time. You have no idea what the colour was two thousand years ago.

Plus we have 2 iron musculatas from 4 BC.

Neither of which are Roman.

And what pigments have to do with mosaic which is made of stone? It's full of well choosen colors.

I did not say they were roman. I sad that it was possbile to make them back in 4BC so it was also possible to make them 800yrs later, maybe with some better and cheaper technology.
By second one I mean Philip's II.

We also have bronze one with side hinges but it was probably etruscan.
Im just pointing, that they did not need technology "out of the moon" to make them.

[Dan Howard]

And what pigments have to do with mosaic which is made of stone?

Ceramic, not stone. Blue pigments can change to grey or even green if exposed to sunlight for a prolonged period. Even if the original colour was supposed to be grey, how do you know that it isn't representing a cuirass that has been tinned? How about linen armour? What colour do you think white cloth could change to if worn in the field for a while? Greeks and Romans made use of tawed leather, which is grey in colour, and we know that some Greek armour was made from leather. It is irrational to automatically assume that an illustration of grey armour is a depiction of iron. This is the problem with this kind of reasoning. A preconception that Romans wore iron musculatas leads to cherry-picking the data that supports this conclusion without considering other possibilities.

By second one I mean Philip's II.

The Vergina cuirass more likely belonged to Philip III Arrhidaeus and it isn't a musculata.

Im just pointing, that they did not need technology "out of the moon" to make them.

This is the kind of logic that leads to highlander ninjas.

We also have bronze one with side hinges but it was probably etruscan.

I thought this thread was about iron musculata.

There isn't any point going any further with this until someone comes up with a decent argument for Romans actually wearing this kind of armour.

[Damianus Albus]

And what pigments have to do with mosaic which is made of stone?

Blue tiles can change to grey or even green if exposed to sunlight for a prolonged period.

By second one I mean Philip's II.

The Vergina cuirass more likely belonged to Philip III Arrhidaeus and it isn't a musculata.

Im just pointing, that they did not need technology "out of the moon" to make them.

This is the kind of logic that leads to highlander ninjas.

We also have bronze one with side hinges but it was probably etruscan.

I thought this thread was about iron musculata.

There isn't any point going any further with this until someone comes up with a decent argument for Romans actually wearing this kind of armour.

Even if it was blue, it still means that it was iron because it coule be blue druring bluing process.
No matter what, if it was bronze, it would look different. Especilly because figures next to it have bronze helmets.

It isnt musculata but it's a iron sheet.

But there are many decent arguments for it.
First of all, economic. Do we know how Romans made 0,5mm iron strips? We don't.
Sim and Kaminski tried 6 different techniques and all they could do was 4mm sheet (from ingot) which is 4x times thicker than remains and it has forging sings. But does it mean that segmentatas and scales were brought by aliens? Of course not. Romans had to had somekind of XXX kg hammers or rollers becasue otherwise they wouldnt be able to produce so thin sheets. We can only assume that such huge smithing object were uncommon in Republic and Early Empire, while they became very common in Late Empire manufactures. Of course we don't have any finds of such objects becasue no one sane would leave XX-XXX kg "hammer". It would huge waste of material. Yet we know they had to had something like this becasue how they would produce that amount of thin sheet and strips while keeping them in a similar thickness, no matter where remains was found. If it was done fully manually, finds would be very different, various thicnkess, yet we have quite similar. That's the reason to assume, Romans had used somekind of machinery to produce similar sheets on a big scale.
So if we assume that they could make thin sheet/strips in the Republic and Early Empire - which is presented by reliefs where soldiers are wearing segmentata. We could assume that during Late Empire they were able to produce wider strips/sheets for muscualata, and by that period we see soldiers in the same context as before but now, they are wearing musculata. Of course, one could say that it is artistic conception but about it later.
So if we assume they could make big enoigh iron sheets in a cheap why by using rollers or huge "hammers", such armor would require less material, less time and less money than any other. Like mentioned before, Sim and Kaminski claim that musculata was most economic armor.



Also from economic point of view, musculata wouldnt need any repairs until it was shattered and then it was perfect material for recycle opposite to scales, mails and strips. This would also fit a theory of lower iron extraction in late empire but it remains to be investigated by my.

Secondly, battle usage. Such armor would have 2 big advantages. First one is ease of removing rust. Excluding hamata, which could clean itself, musculata would be the easiet to keep in shape when compare to squamata and segmentata.
Second one is more importat. Resistant to blunt trauma of such armor would be superior to any other as it would absord most of the force to itself, leaving soldier mostly untouched.

Third thing is art. In Republic and Early Empire we can see musculata next to segmentata or hamata but it's highly exclusive for officers. Then suddenly in 4 and 5 AD we can see soldiers wearing musculata. Not just officers but also others. They were shown in the same context like soldiers in segmentata before yet we don't deny that segmentata had existed becasue we have found them (2 and few strips - not so much and when you think of 4-5kg iron plate which would be perfect for recycling, no wonder that we havent found them). So why would they start to present soldiers in fantastic armor when befire they were shown in real one? One could say that it was hellenistic influence but if so, why armor are plain and simple? Why not make medusa theme on them? Why not make clearly visible muscles like Greek once? There are 2 answers for that. 1 - they were made of iron which isnt perfect material for deep work. 2 - they were made for battle so highly decorated plates werent that important. I also have to give credits to Travis Lee, who saw probably two different types of musculata on Trajan. Once, Trajan was presented in a prettier, with a waisted muscualata and more often in simpler, straight one. Why would anyone present Emperor in a simpler armor? I doubt that artist was lazy and left musculata half-done. The case can be that one type of armor, waisted, decorated was for a ceremonial usage and mone, simpler and more comfortable was made for a battle usage already back in Trajan's times, long time before it could be produced on a bigger scale.

This is just short brief on my point of view about musculata.
Also like I mentioned before, there are authors who think that musculata was used regulary in 4 an 5 AD.

[Dan Howard]

First of all, economic. Do we know how Romans made 0,5mm iron strips? We don't.

We have examples of scale armour made from 0.5mm plate from all over the world dating from the Bronze age onwards. We have metal foil many many times thinner dating from the Bronze Age onwards.

Sim and Kaminski tried 6 different techniques and all they could do was 4mm sheet (from ingot) which is 4x times thicker than remains and it has forging sings. But does it mean that segmentatas and scales were brought by aliens? Of course not. Romans had to had somekind of XXX kg hammers or rollers becasue otherwise they wouldnt be able to produce so thin sheets.

The Romans didn't need any magical technology. We know that many cultures before the Romans were capable of producing 0.5mm or even thinner metal plate.

[Damianus Albus]

First of all, economic. Do we know how Romans made 0,5mm iron strips? We don't.

We have examples of scale armour made from 0.5mm plate from all over the world dating from the Bronze age onwards. We have metal foil many many times thinner dating from the Bronze Age onwards.

Sim and Kaminski tried 6 different techniques and all they could do was 4mm sheet (from ingot) which is 4x times thicker than remains and it has forging sings. But does it mean that segmentatas and scales were brought by aliens? Of course not. Romans had to had somekind of XXX kg hammers or rollers becasue otherwise they wouldnt be able to produce so thin sheets.

The Romans didn't need any magical technology. We know that many cultures before the Romans were capable of producing 0.5mm or even thinner metal plate.

[snipped]

Your entire argument seems to be based on the assumption that only the Romans could produce metal plate this thin.

Sure we do, but I have asked HOW? And this question still remains.

I assume that Romans could make thin iron plates, not just metal in general becasue bronze or brass are far easier to make thin than iron. And did someone examined them for forging sings?
So, Im not famialiar with any 0,5-1mm thick iron plates before Romans which were found on a mass scale, are you? If you are, I would ask to show me them.

[Dan Howard]

The earliest are the four copper scales measuring around 0.5mm thick that were found at Asyut, Egypt and dated to the 11th or 12th Dynasty (1800-2000 BC). Petrie Museum inventory No. UC38049A.


The most comprehensive find is the scales found at Nuzi, Iraq and dated to the 15th century BC. There were dozens and dozens of scales found of many sizes and all of them were well under 1mm thick.
T. Kendall, Warfare and Military Matters in the Nuzi Tablets. PhD dissertation, (Brandeis University, 1974).





.

[Damianus Albus]

I don't know how I can put it simpler.

I'm talking about iron and you are point me copper scales