Talk:Lorica squamata

Merge

It is proposed that Lorica Squamata be merged with this article. It was only when I had written Lorica squamata that I found the Lorica Squamata article existed! If the consensus is to merge, I will volenteer to do it. Gaius Cornelius 18:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Done.

Upward thrusts

What is the basis for the claim:

Much has been written about scale armour’s supposed vulnerability to an upward thrust, but this is probably greatly exaggerated.

The "greatly exaggerated" idea seems to me to be obviously true; if the lorica in our photograph was mounted on cloth, it would clearly offer no protection whatsoever against upward thrusts since the only connection between rows which might hinder a blade from sliding between them, is the cloth backing. -- Securiger 03:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. If you'd move the tip of a sharp implement upwards with some speed, it would slip over a scale, then below the scale above, and through the fabric. Shinobu 15:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If the scales were attached to a form of linothorax (multiple layers of linen acting as a composite armour) and/or felt, both of which were in use generally in the ancient world, then you have an incredibly effective armour even if a sword tip went under the scales. The subarmalis itself may have been a type of linothorax. You also seem to assume that the most common weapon that Roman armour would need to withstand was a sword, when the reality was it was spears, which by their very use would seldom penetrate from below. There is also the accepted typical Roman fighting posture - crouched low with the scutum as primary defence. The scales would act very well in that stance. Did the Romans worry about the lorica segmentata overlapping downwards? --Tarbicus.

All this about immunity to spear thrusts is all very well, but we were discussing whether or not it is vulnerable to upthrusts. As for Romans adopting a tactic to minimise that vulnerability: if that is correct, then it actually proves the point since they would not adopt the tactic unless the threat existed. As for linothorax: I don't believe there is any evidence the subarmalis was linothorax, which had generally gone out of use by around 400 BC; and was apparently quite stiff (completely obviating the advantages of flexible scale armour.) Further, it is difficult to suggest that a hypothetical subarmalis of linothorax would be "incredibly effective" when it remains a matter of considerable controversy as to exactly what linothorax was! Certainly, in the event that the linothorax was incredibly effective against a sword tip which had slipped past the scales, it is difficult then to see what point there was to adding the scales. Your last point -- did the Romans worry about it, i.e. are there preserved discussions in their writings -- is however a good one. Can we find any such writings, and if not, can we find the origin of this discussion? -- Securiger 19:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lorica squamata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051224020452/http://www.gemina.nl/images/Rizisepics/Mainz_LandesMuseum_Loric.jpg to http://www.gemina.nl/images/Rizisepics/Mainz_LandesMuseum_Loric.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)