Used Types Of The Roman Armour example essay topic

During the expansion of Rome and the acquisition of new territory, the Roman armies were often met by heavy resistance and bloody conflicts. The armies needed a type of protection that would safely protect soldiers and would ensure victory for Rome. That is the reason armour (upper body) in particular was implemented to save soldiers on the battlefield. The armour had to meet certain standards of construction for it to be useful: Of these standards the first was that armour was to be flexible enough to allow the wearer freedom of movement in battle. Secondly, it had to be lightweight it could be worn without wearing down the soldier, while still protecting him against an opponents' weapon: and finally, the armour had to be made at low cost.

These three aspects were influential in the evolution of armour design in the Roman army. The main study point of Roman armour is that it was a trade off between freedom of movement, protection, and cost factor. In the first century A.D. there were about four types of armour in use. The names of the different types were muscle, scale, mail, and segmented mail and the segmented breastplate being the leading type. Studying of these armour types relies upon three main sources of evidence: iconographic; archaeological; and literary source documents. The evolution of Roman armour was influenced by the needs and circumstances of the Roman Army.

Armies of the first century A.D. were finally established within the Empire and control fell solely under the Emperor. With the increase of soldiers in the Roman army, which was up to around thirty legions, well built armour was more in need than ever on the frontiers. The army could be divided into two distinct parts the legion and the auxiliary. Only Roman citizens could become a legionnaire, while the auxiliary were made of non citizens from Rome's settled territories. The early view put forward by a historian named Webster was that the equipment used by the legionnaires was remarkably uniform throughout the empire. However, there has been no evidence that supports this theory, showing that a great number of types and ages of equipment was in use at anyone time.

Peterson argues that uniform armour in the Roman army may have only extended to the soldiers having their own body armour, helmet, weapons and shield showing a common trademark. Bishop and Colston suggest that in this period soldiers purchased their own equipment. This type of owning their own armour meant that the individual would be more respectful of the equipment they owned by having a sense of personal responsibility. Many of these items may have been purchased from army stock, but soldiers may have been free to buy more elaborate or expensive items from private craftsmen.

This was probably beyond the economic means of most soldiers and elaborate armament has been seen only on soldiers of centurion rank or higher. It is further proposed that the military equipment would be sold back upon retirement or death of the owner, and therefore could be used by a number of different owners. The cost of new equipment would probably have implemented recycling of old armour, and with the repair of damaged armaments this may have meant that the lifespan of an object would be many years. These factors also show that production of new armour at any point in time would have been fairly low.

One of the most widely used types of the Roman armour was the so called 'muscle' plate. This chest armour was moulded on the contours of the muscles of the male chest. This type of armour was probably built from iron or bronze, consisting of a high-waisted or a hip length breastplate. Shoulder straps hinged to the edges of the back plate, with their forward arm protectors tied down to rings on the breast. These plates had side fastenings with two hinges or a pair of rings joined by ties providing for the soldier's left and right flanks.

None of these metallic muscled breastplates of the Roman period have survived the ravages of time. However, Etruscan metal muscle breastplates dating from the fifth to the third Century B.C. have been found. Muscle breastplates have also been believed to have been made of leather. However, a moulded leather breastplate would have to be very thick and stiff to have any defensive virtues. It is suggested that this breastplate type was probably worn almost exclusively by emperors and top-ranking military leaders as a symbol of Roman might and control.

Another type of breastplate was the scale armour, also known as armour. Scale armour is perhaps the oldest type of metal body armour. Peterson proposed that its origins date to at least the second millennium B.C., having a long history of use in Greece and the East. Regardless of its early origins it was used throughout the entire period of Roman control. Scale armour was usually made with short sleeves, and the lower edges reaching the upper thighs. Scale armour was made from both iron and bronze.

The manufacture of scale armour involved small sections of metal sheeting of varying sizes being attached by wires or riveted to their neighbours and sewn onto a properly flexible foundation of hide or strong cloth. Early scale armour was commonly joined by small twisted links of bronze wiring, positioned in horizontal rows, overlapping upwards and layered like scales of a fish or in the manner of roof tiles. Pieces of bronze scale armour were found at the site of Cor bridge in Northumberland England. These scales were very small, and due to the great expense of manufacturing such fine armour, probably an officer, would have purchased this armour himself.

A similar group of 346 scales which was found in the fort of Newstead (A.D. 98-100), of yellow bronze, these measured 2.9 cm by 1.2 cm. Generally the defensive qualities of scale are inferior to mail armour, being neither as strong nor as flexible. It was nevertheless popular throughout the Roman period, possibly because it appears that it may have been simpler to manufacture and repair than other armour. Experiments conducted show that arrowheads, when fired against various Roman armour at a range of seven meters one out of every two occasions, the arrowheads seemed to penetrate the type of armour. This may occur due to the shape of the scales and the way the scales may have been assembled. Archaeological finds appear to point out that this type of armour was used much more widely than the surviving sculptures suggest, although only remains of the armour survive.

Despite this evidence the use of scale does not appear to have been as extensive as mail. Peterson suggests that the records indicate that mail was largely the exclusive equipment of centurions and high-ranking officers between the first and second centuries A.D. It is commonly accepted that the Romans acquired their knowledge of mail- making from the Celts, who were the original builders of this form of armour. The foundation of mail consists of metal rings, each one linked through four others, two in the row above it and two below. The fine mail of the first century could be made from bronze or iron rings measuring as little as three millimetres in diameter.

Only fragments of mail exist in the archaeological record but the sculptured record indicates that there were many variations of mail. The method of construction of mail rings in Roman times would be similar to that of later periods. Worry says that mail could be made from rings of two sorts: solid rings or opened, linked rings which could be either butted or riveted shut. The Romans appear to have almost always riveted the ends of the rings together, the result being that the mail was much stronger than the butted variety, made by simply butting the wire ends together and which could be tom open quite readily.

These rings could vary in size from an outside diameter ranging between three millimetres and nine millimetres, the latter being found in post first century A.D. sites. There were some advantages and disadvantages in using mail armour. The first was that the rings provided excellent defence against slashing cuts and were also effective against thrusts, while remaining very flexible. As there were only interlinking rings to give it form the armour suffered little from wear and could be repaired even when badly damaged. Mail armour could be easily recycled and passed down from the legion to the auxiliary, as it would still remain functional as armour regardless of its age or even if superseded by another type. This may be indicated by the sculptured record from later periods such as Trajan's column, which shows that earlier types of mail were in use with the western legions during the Dacian campaigns.

A disadvantage of mail over other armour was that its construction was extremely labour intensive, perhaps taking as much as one hundred and eighty hours to make a complete mail outfit of the simplest type to be worn by auxiliaries. Obviously armour of this type must have been a costly exercise to manufacture. While it afforded reasonable freedom of movement, it was also very heavy, weighing perhaps as much as fifteen pounds. The weight may have been countered by the use of a 'military belt', which could be drawn tightly about the waist, thus distributing part of the weight onto the hips and rel...