Lamellar and cataphract armour

[Peroni]

Wow! Where does that guy come from!

I don't know Aitor. Primvs Pavlus sent it to me, maybe he knows(?)

[Robert Vermaat]

hock: hock: hock: hock: hock: hock: hock: hock: hock: hock:

Thought you'd like to see this...Quite impressive!
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/ ... /e014a.jpg

[tlclark]

Thought you'd like to see this...Quite impressive!

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/ ... /e014a.jpg

WHOA NELLIE!!

That's amazing.

(Ok, enough goofing off back to grading papers!)

[Robert Vermaat]

I don't think it would be lamellar, not at that length anyway.
Lamellar scales are wired both vertically and horizontally, and a cuirass that long wouldn't move! Lamellar stops at the waist to allow the wearer to bend at the waist.
This depiction is too long to be lamellar IMHO

http://111935.aceboard.fr/111935-2342-5 ... laires.htm

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Looks like archers armour! Although I haven't seen any personally! The helmets look like a branch of Spanglehelms?

[Dan Howard]

Wow! Where does that guy come from! hock:

BTW, the Dura leather cuisses are not lamellar, they are common scale, though laced.

James says that they are not lamellar but if you use the definition he gives in his book then those cuisses do meet the criteria for lamellar.

[Robert Vermaat]

I split the discussion in three, with lamellar and cataphract armour as a new part, since it is different from the 'leather segmentata' discussion.

[aitor iriarte]

Dan,
Probably, the difference between scale and lamellar is largely a nominal one... :?
For me, if it is not laced, pointing upwards and tied at the point, it is not lamellar. The Dura cuisses are laced (as opposite to sewn to a fabric base) but they are like any other scales, otherwise.

Aitor

[Tarbicus]

So the overlap on lamellar is upwards, probably to deflect weapon attacks from lower down like a cavalryman would need, not a foot soldier?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

But then would arrows not find an easier path? Just a thought! I always thought scale armour was vulnerable the way you discuss Aitor/Tarb , but then if the overlap is pointing up, archers would have a field-day! :?

[Dan Howard]

James' definition of lamellar has to do with whether a foundation is needed for the construction and I use this definition also. The shape of the scales and the direction of overlap are largely irrelevant. The cuisses qualify as lamellar since the plates are not attached to a foundation.

[aitor iriarte]

Dan, therefore, locking-scale is lamellar in your opinion?

Aitor

[Dan Howard]

I would have no problem getting rid of the term "scale" entirely and replace it with something like "backed lamellar". There is too much overlap between scale and lamellar for the terms to be useful.

[Conal]

So the overlap on lamellar is upwards, probably to deflect weapon attacks from lower down like a cavalryman would need, not a foot soldier?

They may be laced this way up to ease movement rather than in consideration of an angle of attack by an opponent. The plates tend to overlap by 50% so it makes it academic as far as reasonable angles of approach from above are concerned.

Also the torso elements could be laces or wired stiffly cutting off all angles of attack leaving the limbs laced more loosely.

[Dan Howard]

The overlap is to assist movement. It has nothing to do with the angle of attack. You'll find that the vast majority of lamellar overlaps upwards.