The Armour Archive

I've been looking for all the information I can find on scales and lacing patterns, from eastern to western armor, and they seem to vary an incredible ammount, even within one area. From the square, to rounded corner of wisby to the s-formed kozane, to even others.

There are also many examples in paintings and that are recorded that are not the square look, but the 'fantasy-classic' look of actual snake/fish scales, but I've yet to actually see or hear of anyone using this. Is this due to a ruling against them (pointy plates?), just personal preference, difficulty of fabrication and construction, or am I just looking in the wrong place?

Thanks

I found a reprint of H.Russel Robinson's "oriental armour" by dover press, it may either answer some questions or confuse the issue more Great book!! worth the 18$

Have a look here, here and here. There are also contemporary representations of Byzantine scale and lamellar armour here and here.

Borislav wrote:There are also many examples in paintings and that are recorded that are not the square look, but the 'fantasy-classic' look of actual snake/fish scales, but I've yet to actually see or hear of anyone using this. Is this due to a ruling against them (pointy plates?), just personal preference, difficulty of fabrication and construction, or am I just looking in the wrong place?
Thanks

Are you asking if Scale armor is legal as combat armor? I can only answer from the perspective of the SCA in An Tir. I have seen it used, I can't think of any reason it would be illegal.

Og

Hi.

Have a look at these:

http://www3.uakron.edu/worldciv/china/ch-armor.html

The third from above has particularly nice scales, if you only want the looks of scale without bothering for accuracy of time and place. Plus, the lacing pattern keeps the scales from "flapping up" and rattling like standard scales with tho rivets on the top side do.

Regards

Ivo

They don't flap up like regular scales because it's not scale armor. It's Lamellar. Lamellar != Scale.

Ivo wrote:Hi.
The third from above has particularly nice scales, if you only want the looks of scale without bothering for accuracy of time and place. Plus, the lacing pattern keeps the scales from "flapping up" and rattling like standard scales with tho rivets on the top side do.
Ivo

Ogedei,

I took the ming suits (especially the torso protections) for scale for overlapping downwards as opposed to lamellae overlapping upwards. If I remember correctly in H. Russell Robinson´s "Oriental Armour" they went under scale as well.
I was referring to the armour pictures showing this pattern

http://www3.uakron.edu/worldciv/china/mvc-749s.jpg

Regards

Ivo

Actually lamellar overlaps upwards OR downwards, depends on who makes it and who is wearing it. Scale always goes down but lamellar can go either way. Personally I like the upwards overlap better, but either way works.

Ivo wrote:Ogedei,

I took the ming suits (especially the torso protections) for scale for overlapping downwards as opposed to lamellae overlapping upwards. If I remember correctly in H. Russell Robinson´s "Oriental Armour" they went under scale as well.
I was referring to the armour pictures showing this pattern

http://www3.uakron.edu/worldciv/china/mvc-749s.jpg

Regards

Ivo

Yeah, as Animal said they can go up or down (I as well like the upward overlap). The difference between the two types isn't the direction the plates go. In scale armor the plates are attached to a flexible backing. In Lamellar the plates are laced to each other.

That suit looks like lamellar to me. Those plates look like ovals, or am I on drugs?

Ogedei

Nah, those are the tombstone shaped lamella. My old suit was made of those except I overlapped mine upwards.

Animal wrote:Nah, those are the tombstone shaped lamella. My old suit was made of those except I overlapped mine upwards.

Well it could be an optical illusion, but the plates near the bottom look distinctly round.

Any idea why the 3rd row from the bottom is laced opposite the rest of the suit?
(ie they overlap to the right instead of to the left)

Og

Upon closer inspection you might be right about the oval thing but I cant say decisively. As to the direction change, I dunno. Maybe the guy lost track of his direction. My suit alternates rows lapping right and left so they dont weave together.

Animal wrote:Upon closer inspection you might be right about the oval thing but I cant say decisively. As to the direction change, I dunno. Maybe the guy lost track of his direction. My suit alternates rows lapping right and left so they dont weave together.

Yeah perhaps. Thats what I thought it was, alternating rows, then I was like....No just that one row.

Oh well.

Og

I saw some 'B' shaped plates once. I dunno what period or culture they were from but they looked cool as hell. Do you know where they were from?

Animal wrote:I saw some 'B' shaped plates once. I dunno what period or culture they were from but they looked cool as hell. Do you know where they were from?

Are they lined up like D shaped plates or rotated 90 degrees? Either way I am not framiliar with this shape. Seems strange, but I believe it looks cool. Lamellar usually does


Ogedei,
Lamellar junkie

No, they looked like the capital leter B. I think it was on the silk road armory page I saw them but I cant recall.
So, as another lamellar junkie, got a pic of yours?

Hi.

I just re- read several articles.
As to categories and thir definition:

Lamellar in all periods and times i could find so far was constructed overlapping upwards, in most cases without a foundation. Being generally corious for new knowledge, I´d like to see some reference for lamellar overlapping downwards. As far as I see it this seems to be a modern custom.

Scales are constructed overlapping downwards (and I haven´t got an explanation for the change of the lacing direction in the Chinese specimen), and frequently are not only fastened to the foundation at the top, but to one another in horizontal columns as are lamellae.

The shape of the scales is not "tombstone" but rather leaf- shaped. Something like a compressed kite shield shape with a straightened upper edge.

The type of scales in the Chinese example seems to be quite universal, an almost identical shape and lacing pattern is quoted by H. Russell Robinson as being provincial roman (the used to be in a museum in Zagreb, Yugoslavia at the time the book was written), other quite similar ones are quoted to be chinese or ancient egyptian. There´s medieval examples that are also fastened in colums overlapping sidewards which again are fastened to each other. So scales have a general drawback...either they are affixed ath their upper edges only and rattle as hell or they are fastened to each other thus rendering them less flexible. That so far is all documantable evidence that I could gather from my collection of books.

Regards

Ivo

Ivo wrote:Hi.

I just re- read several articles.
As to categories and thir definition:

Lamellar in all periods and times i could find so far was constructed overlapping upwards, in most cases without a foundation. Being generally corious for new knowledge, I´d like to see some reference for lamellar overlapping downwards. As far as I see it this seems to be a modern custom.

Ivo

There are some Byzantine examples at http://www.geocities.com/egfroth1/ByzAr ... 6424880530 - in particular, the sleeve and skirt armour at http://www.angelfire.com/empire/egfroth ... rcher2.jpg - though it looks at first glance like scale, you can see the hanging laces, which indicate it is actually lamllar. Also, it is my belief that the armour shown on arms and skirt at http://www.angelfire.com/empire/egfroth ... arving.jpg and http://www.culture.gr/2/21/218/218ci/00/l9-1.html is a form of downward-overlapping lamellar. I'm currently working on reconstructing the lacing pattern.

But I've never seen any indication of it on the torso.

Egfroth,

to my mind the information provided in the art you quoted to my mind look like a convention in depicting pteryges. Especially the skirt portions show "folds" which could not possibly appear if they were of lamellar construction.
If I had to interpret these depictions alone ( although nozt being so deep into Byzantine stuff as you are), I´d say they are some sort of pteryges, most probably reinforced and thus stiffened by plate or lamella shaped mounts, which could be the reason for them being depicted looking so "flat" or "stiff".

I might as well be completely wrong;o)

Regards

Ivo