posted 02-10-2001 11:01 PM            

Actually, maille was a mainstay long before Rome fell.

But then plate had a long history, too. This piece:

is from the 9-8th century BC. (Image from Celtic_Art_Cultures)

It is of Bronze.

I suspect that on the one hand, maille served the needs of the Europeans rather well.

I'm tempted to say it may have been difficult to produce sheet iron/steel large enough to fabricate plate armor, but I doubt this is the case.

So the answer is: don't know.

posted 02-11-2001 11:56 AM               

I guess the Dark Agers didn't adopt it because it required more skill and time, thus money, to make. Mail itself was not so common in the period after the Roman empire, most people just wore leather armors. During the centuries more and better mail became available, finally leading to the re-adoption of plate in the late Middle ages.

posted 02-11-2001 01:59 PM              

Opps forgot the the gold torc round your neck, symbol of your dignity and status.

posted 02-12-2001 10:46 AM               

I would guess that the lorica segmentata disappeareed from use as the need for heavy infantry, who were the ones who used it in the Roman context, faded from the scene and were replaced by the mobile Field Armies of the later Third Century CE. The armor used by many of the men at that time was lamellar, made up of small plates of iron, bronze, horn, or even leather laced together to from a relatively rigid hauberk, rather like the JApanese armors of later date or mid-eastern armors of nearly any date. Of course, scale armor was always used, and mail remained in use.

I would hazard a guess that the reasons for the lorica segmentata not coming back into use were that it required a large manufacturing infrastructure to produce the steel plates in uniform shapes and sizes (stamping and rolling machinery), that it was awkward for mounted men to wear, which would exclude the only ones who could afford it, since the leaders in the Dark Ages mostly rode into battle, and the fyrd or other militia types were lucky to have a helmet and a shield, let alone armor.

------------------
Walk in the Light,
Hugh

posted 02-12-2001 03:06 PM               

Not having been around in the Dark Ages, AFAIK, I'm only guessing here. But weren't the Dark Ages nasty and brutal generally? Because you can sleep in maille with relative comfort. I don't know if the Roman legs slept in their segementatae(?), but I'd guess that with plate, you'd be tempted to slough it at night, and take your time donning it in the morning.

Perhaps in the Dark Ages, they would expect to wake up to some violent surprises, and have to gear up pretty quickly. Having you armor already on would help out alot. I think.

posted 02-12-2001 06:09 PM            

I think this would not only have increased the maille's corrosion resistance, but left it with a hard skin yet durable core (depending of course, on how you "cooked" it.

This would have given you the best of both worlds--the edge resistance of steel on the outside, and that "bread-dough"-like quality of wrought iron on the inside that tends to bend rather than catastrophically fracture.
____________

In terms of thinking about Eddie's question, I think we need to forget everything we know about armor and warfare from the 10th century onward--not so easy.

We haven't really considered the question of whether there was "plate" armor during the migration era. And if so, how was it viewed?

Just a thought--offhand, I can't think of any examples of dark age plate.

As far as the availability of iron, there's this from the Monk of St. Gall:

quote:

---

Now it happened that some years before one of the first nobles, called Otker, had incurred the wrath of the most terrible emperor, and had fled for refuge to Desiderius. When the near approach of the dreaded Charles was known, these two went up into a very high tower, from which they could see anyone approaching at a very great distance. When therefore the baggage-waggons appeared, which moved more swiftly than those used by Darius or Julius, Desiderius said to Otker: "Is Charles in that vast army?" And Otker answered: "Not yet." Then when he saw the vast force of the nations gathered together from all parts of his empire, he said with confidence to Otker: "Surely Charles moves in pride among those forces." But Otker answered: "Not yet, not yet." Then Desiderius fell into great alarm and said, "What shall we do if a yet great force comes with him?" And Otker said, "You will see what he is like when he comes. What will happen to us I cannot say." And, behold, while they were thus talking, there came in sight Charles's personal attendants, who never rested from their labours; and Desiderius saw them and cried in amazement, "There is Charles." And Otker answered: "Not yet, not yet." Then they saw the bishops and the abbots and the clerks of his chapel with their attendants. When he saw them he hated the light and longed for death, and sobbed and stammered, "Let us of down to hide ourselves in the earth from the face of an enemy so terrible." And Otker answered trembling, of once, in happier days, he had had through and constant knowledge of the policy and preparations of the unconquerable Charles: "When you see an iron harvest bristling in the fields; and the Po and the Ticino pouring against the walls of the city like the waves of the sea, gleaming black with glint of iron, then know that Charles is at hand." Hardly were these words finished when there came from the west a black cloud, which turned the bright day to horrid gloom. But as the emperor drew nearer the gleam of the arms turned the darkness into day, a day darker than any night to that beleaguered garrison. Then could be seen the iron Charles, helmeted with an iron helmet, his hands clad in iron gauntlets, his iron breast and broad shoulders protected with an iron breastplate: an iron spear was raised on high in his left hand; his right always rested on his unconquered iron falchion. The thighs, which with most men are uncovered that they may the more easily ride on horseback, were in his case clad with plates of iron: I need make no special mention of his greaves, for the greaves of all the army were of iron. His shield was all of iron: his charger was iron coloured and iron-hearted. All who went before him, all who marched by his side, all who followed after him and the whole equipment o the army imitated him as closely as possible. The fields and open places were filled with iron; the rays of the sun were thrown back by the gleam of iron; a people harder than iron paid universal honour to the hardness of iron. The horror of the dungeon seemed less than the bright gleam of iron. "Oh the iron! Woe for the iron!" was the confused cry that rose from the citizens. The strong walls shook at the sight of the iron; the resolution of young and old fell before the iron. Now when the truthful Otker saw in one swift glance all this which I, with stammering tongue and the voice of a child, have been clumsily explaining with rambling words, he said to Desiderius: "There is the Charles that you so much desired to see": and when he had said this he fell to the ground half dead.

---

posted 02-12-2001 11:51 PM               

Hammering out larger pieces [and getting enough of the impurites out in the process] of iron sheet strikes me as more technologically advanced than drawing wire, and the evidence supports this, afaik.

So the most probable explanation is that wire was relatively easy to make.

------------------
Gundo

Wise Ogre Armory

posted 02-13-2001 07:09 AM               

there is a learned piece on mail

The Mail-Maker's Technique
E. Martin Burgess
The Antiquaries Journal
Vol XXXIII pp 48-45

also

Further Research Into the Construction of Mail Garments
same author, same publication except pp193-202

this is a pretty exhaustive discussion of how these things were made, from drawing the wire to the "final fitting".

posted 02-13-2001 07:33 AM               

At the moment there is considerable research being conducted into the mail making processes. It will be published sometime in the not too distant future.

Cheers,

Erik

posted 02-13-2001 01:49 PM               

As to the lorica segmentata as a defense about the shoulder, students now think thatthet is the reason for its adoption. If you look at an illustration of one, you will see that it has very broad straps of steel or of iron across the shoulders to protect them from downward slashes by the enemy's swords or axes. I suspect that the part of the anatomy that you meant to say was left unprotected was the upper arm, and most of the mail hauberks used by the Romans would also have left it relatively unprotected, as they tended to be patterned on the Greek linen hauberk.

------------------
Walk in the Light,
Hugh

posted 02-13-2001 11:10 PM               

------------------
Walk in the Light,
Hugh

posted 02-13-2001 11:58 PM               

The question should not be, "why was plate armor abandoned?" but why was it adopted in the 13th-17th centuries? The traditional answer is as a response to the longbow/crossbow. I think not: plate armor was common on the continent before longbows crossed the channel. My vote is to provide deflecting surfaces for the point of a couched lance.

posted 02-14-2001 01:33 AM               

Analysis of scale width indicates that the Romans had some mechanism for rolling sheets of iron and bronze. Such technology may have been lost after the collapse of the Western Empire, which may partially explain why plate armor disappeared for so long, as well as the more puzzling question as to why scale, mail's poorer cousin, also disappeared.

The ancient Greeks had developed highly sophisticated bronze plate armor very early on, and the Dendra panoply, dated at 1400 BC, resembles the lorica segmentata in many ways. (BTW, that beautiful bronze corselet in Sikandur's post above is probably Greek, and certainly not "Celtic." The site lists it as Hallstatt, which could not have even begun before 600 BC.)

Mail was never common until Rome made it so. Even if the so-called Celts invented it (which is questionable), there is nothing to indicate its use by any except the wealthiest noblemen. The common soldier would have worn it if he could have afforded it, but barbarian Europe did not possess the economic strength, or the technological sophistication, to outfit its warrior classes the way Rome and Greece did.

Plate armor disappeared from Europe for all the reasons Hugh lists, though I might also add that the while I agree that the lorica segmentata would have found no place in the mobile field armies of the later Empire, there is no doubt the Empire would have continued to equip its foot soldiers with the best equipment (i.e. the lorica segmentata) IF it still possessed the economic might to do so. That it could not is a clear indicator of the economic weakness that crippled the later Empire.

Once a technology is lost, even a crucial one, it tends to stay that way until conditions return that allow it to re-emerge. So with plate armor in Europe. It's interesting to note that there is archeological evidence that some of the Germanic tribes of the Migration period brought lamellar armor with them from the Eastern Steppes, but this technology died out rather quickly. The chances are the economic conditions and industrial stability necessary to produce the metal plates for lamellar construction did not arrive in time to reproduce it. If it had, I feel there is little doubt that plate armor would have returned to Europe very many years earlier than it did.

Gregg

posted 02-14-2001 06:54 AM               

The celts were probably the "inventor" of the mail. Gauls were using it.
the Gauls sems to have been the first to use "extra Shoulder protection".
bunching mails increase the protection against missile.
It seems that the segmentata was lighter than the mail and offered a better protection against all weapons types.

Having been a full plate, mail shirt and in a segmentata
(both being replicas)
the segementata is far more "souple" and almost does not restrict movement. On thing that is often forgotten is that (mail require very good padding.......)

The segemtata did not seem to be as labour intensive as the mail but require more skill to make and to maintain and need spare parts or at least an efficient logistic.
(especially if the armour is made of soft iron/steel).

I tend to agree with the fact armour like segementata need an infrastructure and a logistic than probably only england (in the 14-15 century) could have.
As far as i know, The most common armor around 500 to 700 was leather based (ringed, studed or plated).

posted 02-14-2001 07:14 AM               

The earliest known metal armor were bronze cuirasses dating back from the Bronze Age (the Hallstatt period). The Greeks improved the design somewhat. A typical thorax was more comfortable, but still a pain to carry around for long. The real problem was, simple breastplates as such did not require great skill to make. But anything more elaborate and comfortable demanded a quantum leap in technology and design.

It's no surprise that primitive plate was soon replaced by mail. While a Greek thorax offered excellent protection, it was far too heavy for any prolonged fighting. On the other hand, mail was lighter and flexible. It was an almost ideal trade-off between comfort and protection. And this is why it remained in use for so long.

The lorica segmentata was a huge improvement over the traditional rigid cuirasses. Yet it was still bulky and nowhere as comfortable as a mail shirt. I believe Hugh is going in the right direction. The Roman strategy and tactics have changed enormously during the 2nd century and the new legions needed to be much more mobile. At the same time, there was never enough money to equip the army properly. As a result, armor slowly began to fade away altogether.