Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Rusting metal and Armour
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Friday, 1st August 2008
RF has mentioned razors rusting. So what about Roman armour? All those curved bits about the shoulders and the body armour, for instance -so was their armour as burnished as re-enactors would have us believe? Their blades were of a hardened iron - more like steel, perhaps but the rest?
Roman spit and polish on a daily basis must have been a bit of a trial.
Regards, P. -
Message 2
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 2nd August 2008
Sat, 02 Aug 2008 19:14 GMT, in reply to priscilla in message 1
Of course truth be told we don't know.
However, like all armies, the Romans seem to have wanted to keep their soldiers busy at all times. A surviving duty roster makes numerous references to soldiers being assigned to 'Boots'. Precisely what this was is a mystery. Possibly it was literally cobbling, but it has also been interpreted as shorthand for fatigues in general. The segmented armour was held together with complex leather strapping which would need to be kept in good order.
So I think it's safe to assume that the Army DID (or could) look as 'shiny' as in re-enactments (although it probably varied depending on whether they were on campaign or in a permanent base, and where they were, as to the condition they could keep their kit in). -
Message 3
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 3rd August 2008
A very interesting question (love issues on armoury).
I am more of the opinion that the Roman army's armour on average would not look so shiny for some good reasons:
Not talking about Republican times when the Roman legionaire had most often no armour at all, throughout the nearly 500 years of its classical Imperial period (1st B.C. - 5th A.D.), the main Roman army's armours were not the impressive in sight and potentially shiny lorica segmentatas (plate iron belts tied and held by leather ropes) but the traditional effective but not shiny lorica hamatas (chain mail) and to some extend the rather shiny squamatas (scale mail). At the very end, chain mail and scale mail virtually completely replaced it for reasons of cost and effectiveness. Even during the heyday of lorica segmentatas actually less than half of the Roman army used it, in fact not even the 1/3 as almost the totality of the Eastern legions probably never adopted it while Western legions adopted it at a maximum 50% since auxiliaries rarely or never used it.
Then, while having a shiny armour is nice and a sign of a good commander that is in control of a disciplined bunch of men, the whole idea was not to steal the heart of some princess by wearing a shiny armour and holding in teeth a red rose (hehe!), but to maintain the armour, somehing so expensive, in good conditions. To get a shiny armour one had to rub but then actually rubbing meant producing damage to the material. If one thinks that lorica segmentata plates were any belt-like thick then he is mistaken... we are talking about very thin plates, often so thin that specialists are certain that this is not due to corrosion (as previously thought) but due to the fact that some loricas were not a proper armour by themselves but a complementary over simplistic leather/mail armours (two thin layers are better than one thick). For such a thin plate rubbing meant only more corrosion - justified only for a parade in Rome but not justified for a parade in the local town.
The same of course held true for the also potentially shiny squamatas (scale mail). In fact for all plate, scale and mail - the latter being the main armour type - Romans (like others) used anti-corrosion surface plating techniques like brassing and tinning as well as being completed with brass fittings on the edges that naturally are more prone to corossion and cracks. Trying to make the surface shine would mean actually scratching off the surface protection and provoking instantly in a matter of 1-2 days the first signs of corrosion.
On the other hand, the use of bronze weapons in the Roman army has been rather downplayed and the prevalence of iron weapons overplayed (not mentioning that irons of that time did not provide with any overall better quality weaponry). In fact, bronze was the popular choice if one had the money to spend. Today we find mostly the iron pieces only because back then they discarted it when too rusty (full-rusty iron cannot be recycled). However a bronze helmet would fully rust in 100s of years while even a 50 years old rust could be rubbed off and your helmet reused (albeit a bit thinner!). If not, you scratched the blue-grey rust of bronze and re-used the material. Bronze was too expensive to be discarted unlike iron but then in military it had a longer life and thus could be easily seen as financially more interesting than iron. Hence, an important quantity of Roman weaponry (mainly armoury) was made of bronze, not iron. Even an important part of mail armour were actually bronze while half of scale were bronze. And of course while bronze could made to shine more easily than iron, bronze did not need any special rubbing to make shine like gold unless you went on a parade something Romans would do only at special occasions like a triumph in Rome but not for any random battle at the frontiers of the Empire.
The above are only a small part of the truth about the Roman army - the other being its appearence that was never any uniform (as many people want to believe) and the last its real effectiveness (Romans had never the best weapons, nor the best-ever battle tactics and of course never any really effective army : they had an incredibly huge in numbers army and a huge network of local alliances that permitted them to built and maintain their Empire). Considering their supposed uniformity, that could be the case for a parade but not for a real military unit where the only uniformity would be sought in shields and spears - helmets and armours could be of any type... and units did not discart such weaponry prior to reaching the point of being useless. For bronze that could be several decades. It goes without saying that most often units had a mix of iron and bronze weapons with those bronze weapons actualy being more aged and thus of "previous/older/old fashioned" designs - very possibly a sign of pride for veterans. Veterans also would not over-scratch an armour with which they were sentimentally attached for a 2-3 days shine. -
Message 4
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 3rd August 2008
Sun, 03 Aug 2008 19:16 GMT, in reply to E_Nikolaos_E in message 3
Even during the heyday of lorica segmentatas actually less than half of the Roman army used it, in fact not even the 1/3 as almost the totality of the Eastern legions probably never adopted it while Western legions adopted it at a maximum 50% since auxiliaries rarely or never used it.Β
I've love to know where you got your figures from. The concept that the legions never adopted segmentata is a traditional view, based on a lack of evidence, for the armour, but examples are increasingly coming to light, including - I understand - at Masada. I should pick you up on a technicality, actually - auxiliaries were not part of the legions, being organised into smaller units of 500 and 1000. I should probably point out that, whilst I'd agree that the evidence for lack of use for segmentata amongst auxiliaries is strong, there are others who are not convinced.
Bronze helmets may well have been more common than traditionally thought. However, squamata and the controversial 'Golden House Praetorian' (and the odd shield boss) aside, I'm not sure what the evidence for wide-spread use of bronze armour is, at least in the Imperial era. I would be very interested to know what the evidence for the half-bronze hamata is. -
Message 5
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 4th August 2008
Thanks for the very sharp remarks A-N, indeed I was not aware of the finding of Masala - not that it did surprise me anyway as what more natural than a transfer of material throughout the Empire, especially through unit transfers. I still though maintain largely this notion that eastern legions never really adopted on a large scale the "segmentata" type of armour.
Technically auxiliaries indeed were not legionaires and thus should not be included in our discussion, I agree now with that (and there is a huge fight on what type of weapons this guys were given, hehe!).
However, everyone knows that in the lack of any direct and explicit reference in any text it is almost impossible to find out the exact percentage of Roman armour that was made out of bronze.
However, you asked me how am I certain that this percentage was important I will tell you (people ask, nik answers hehe!), however also note that I am no specialist on the issue just have a general knowledge:
1) "Good-old iron" itself is not much of use for any type of weaponry be it offensive or defensive (not so strong or too brittle depending on details, rusts easily, limited re-use etc.). Contrary to the 19th century "copper age, bronze age, iron age", Ppeople had actually known and worked with iron ore on the surface of the earth from meteorite rocks since the dawn of history but generally preferred other metals with the mixture of bronze as favourite. Afterall, iron was difficult to impossible to melt and thus remained largely impure.
2) Iron started becoming more appreciated very roughly by mid-2nd millenia B.C. (the date depends on the locality), when it was found that with some special treatment with charcoal (i.e. carbon) from the smiths fire it becomes considerably more strong than bronze albeit again too often brittle. Experienced smiths however when working with a rather small quantity of ore and from a single iron mine, so as to have one standard ore, could in fact perfection their technique to guarantee to some extend a steel-like metal of increased quality in relation to bronze. However, it is not exactly true to say "steel-like metal" as the smith actually first formed the basic shaoe of the object, say a sword, and then it treated it with coal: hence it was actually only the surface layers of the sword that had steel-like behaviour while the rest remained iron-like creating a sword that could either be too-strong (for contemporary standards) or too brittle... however not rarely these two combined. The cases where smiths perfectioned their technique to achive both a strong material but also less brittle were not very widespread as it all went down to details: if the smith took ore from elsewhere he often had to restart.
3) The pre-requisite for producing high quality iron that is steel, is the blast furnace - a Chinese invention of around 300 B.C. (though it is said that Babylonians earlier might had something similar) - that can raise temperature at more than 1100 C and thus allow the melting of iron so as impurities are completely cleaned. Pure iron if of course useless, the latter process with carbon is rather delicate and perfected only in the late 19th century A.D., however good techniques existed only since late middle ages (and the nice work of Indian smith that inspired the Arab and Byzantine smiths from whom Europeans (who were already hardened smiths anyway) took the lead during Renaissance. It has to be noted though that still, till late 18th century a good quality iron could not easily battle against a good quality bronze for most applications: the difference would be only in price. Bronze was extremely expensive after Renaissance as most mines in Europe had been consumed. Now, Chinese, the inventors of blast furnace never continued their research on that field (for good or for bad) thinking that anyway iron is only good for agriculural tools and for small swords and knifes and thus equipped their armies mainly with bronze armours and weapons till the very late times (they had the money and so they did!).
Hence in those times, roughly speaking from 1000 B.C. to 1000 A.D., if one wanted quality weapons he would opt for bronze keeping the use of iron for small swords and knifes. Ok, bronze was more expensive since taken by the mixture of too other metals, copper and tin. Well, that was not always the case cos it was depending on locality and ressources - for example in Mycenaean region it is said that copper and tin were relatively easy to find via local mines or commerce while iron was more difficult to find and thus more expensive - by early archaic times the picture was different). However, considering the fact that bronze lasted for ages while iron rusted in days if not properly maintained, it made even financially sense! All armies where soldiers were aristocrats/citizens paying for their armour - and thus opting for the best - largely preferred bronze and not iron which they used only for the material of consupmtion (spearheads, knifes, swords etc.). All rich armies were preferrng bronze anyway because they could afford it (Persians, Chinese).
Now, the Roman army with its 300,000 (in Republican times where soldiers did not even have protection apart a wooden shield) to 750,000 soldiers (at Imperial times when conquests had finished and thus costs mattered often more) had never any great aspirations about quality weapons and for any specialist it is not a secret that the Roman army was ranging from average quality to low (weapons... I add also its efficiency). Something that is 100% naturally for an Empire that was not built in a day and nor thanks to its good army but thanks to its massive army and its good diplomacy. That shows why Romans preferred to arm their armies largely with iron weaponry mass produced including not only knifes but also all armour metal objects. In order to fight against the rust they undertook the burden of brassing and tinning and then rivetting small bronze plates over the edges of iron plates
However even modern galvanisation techniques do not guarantee more than 25 years of service for non-damaged surfaces (ghhhmmmm!!! for our case), something which certainly made bronze still very attractive even for cost-killers Romans who would have to calculate that an armour to be cost-effective it would have to serve for at least 30 years (to understand, just imagine a modern army providing a BMW for each soldier!!!!). Also while I overstate the Romans' effort to reduce costs and no matter their indifference to the mass of their soldiers (largely foreigners), I cannot claim that Romans never cared about the real quality of their armour and how it protected their soldiers on battle: yes, they would most certainly do. Hence, it is bound that when they could afford to, they would most possiby opt for bronze not iron just like any other serious army of their times did. Hence, while naturally swords and knifes and spearheads tended to be made from iron, armours and helmets would be quite often made of bronze.
Now if one expects us to make a statistical research on that (like in the case of segmentata in Masala), there is no case he is going to find the truth for one simple reason. Iron was discarted like rubbish while bronze was re-cycled. To find an iron weapon will be easy, to find a bronze one, it will be only the case of accidental loss up in a mountain where nobody re-visited the place for the next 2000 years. Or in a grave but then in such a case the person must had been rather important and not any common soldier, and thus not accepted as a measure by many (including me). In generally it is very natural to find as low as (for example) 10 pieces of a bronze armour for 700 iron ones no matter if in reality the percentages were (say for example) 30%-70%.
Hence I prefer to stick to my above long approach in explaining why Romans might have used bronze armours more than it is thought. -
Message 6
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Monday, 4th August 2008
Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:33 GMT, in reply to E_Nikolaos_E in message 5
Thanks. You've certainly got some interesting points there, and I am prepared to concede that, theoretically, the Romans might have made more widespread use of bronze. Certainly in the earlier Republican era it was in use in the form of simple pectoral breastplates - though, as you say, the provision of such armour was limited to those who could afford it. The Roman Army didn't believe in throwing things away (hence the mixture of types and dates of equipment fielded by the best re-enactment groups), which would also limit the amount of bronze kit in existence, simply because so much of it would be hand-me-down.
That said, I am not an expert, just a very interested party. As such, I'd like to pick the brains of some people I am acquainted with who are - historians and/or re-enactors - who will be more familiar with the evidence, archaeological, literary and artistic, for bronze armour. -
Message 7
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Monday, 4th August 2008
All very interesting, Thanks, Nik and AN.
Two points - Nik will knock this one flat - I have always understood from a breadth of reading and a visit, that the Hittites had advanced metal skills. Sorry not to have my books with me in this country to give references.
Second point. Bronze is an alloy needing aresnicand or tin, I think to covert - whatever - the copper. Whereas copper was more plentiful, the alloys were not.
I also assume there was considerable recycling. Statues from Greece went off to Rome by the shipload for melt down and possibly not all for art work. Your thoughts on this?
Regards, P. -
Message 8
Posted by Penske666 (U9181113) on Tuesday, 5th August 2008
Would they have painted it like later medieval armour?
-
Message 9
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 5th August 2008
Hi Priscilla
Re Rust and armour.
You can clean metal with moistened wood ash. It was used up until modern times. You can also use certain soils, laterite I know for a fact mixed with lime or lemon juice makes a lovely brass polish. Both should work on iron or steel as well.
Its also possible to put a protective coating on the metal during manufactture with blueing and browning. But I dont know for sure if these existed in roman times. Some of the methods are fairly simple though, bluing can be done by baking the metal in a bed of charcol, it also hardens the outer layer of the iron turning it to steel if you know what your doing, and i think its the way the spanish used to make their swords. I think that they could have painted it as well but again how they would have persueded it to bond to the metal?
Most of the roman armour that remains has been badly rusted either in use or while it was waiting to be found there is none in what you might call mint condition its possible that they may have used any numberof methods painting etc but as the surface has rusted away we cant tell.
Most of the methods I know for cleaning metal are in the long run distructive to the surface effectively every time you clean it you scour away a small amount of the surface so even if we found a peice to decide what the original surface treatment was it would have to be an unused section in a factory or armoury if its been cleaned a few times thn the original surface is gone.
mail was cleaned in the medieaval period by taking it off its backing and putting the shirt in a leather bag with an amount of baked river sand and shaking it a lot. Again I dont know for sure if the romans used that method and it is abrasive given a long enough time and the shirt will start to fray like an unravelled jumper. -
Message 10
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 5th August 2008
Theres also the possibility that the metal was just greased with something like olive oil?
Or animal fat?
The image we have of the shining polished legionary might have to be replaced with one of a slightly rusty black painted bloke smelling vaugly of bacon fat. -
Message 11
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Tuesday, 5th August 2008
"Theres also the possibility that the metal was just greased with something like olive oil?
Or animal fat? "
My thoughts too. Here in Greece, ( and I don't see why the rest of the Med wouldn't be the same, past and present) the salt content in sea and air is heavy. Metal rusts at an alarming rate and the only way to stop the rust for any lenght of time is to keep it regularly painted or constantly well oiled. -
Message 12
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Tuesday, 5th August 2008
Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:59 GMT, in reply to islanddawn in message 11
The trouble is, I suspect that the task of keeping one's equipment in good nick was so mundane that no-one bothered to record how it was done. A quick layer of olive oil makes a degree of sense - it's not as if the Romans were short of the stuff. Medieval scabbards were lined with fleece, the natural oils in the wool helping to keep the blade rust free. -
Message 13
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Tuesday, 5th August 2008
Olive oil is actually a really good, very effective lubricant. Use it all the time on anything from locks to the sewing machine and haven't bought the commercial brands for years. Sure the Romans would have been well aware of its versatility.
-
Message 14
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Tuesday, 5th August 2008
cornwell in his excellent novels suggests that armour/mail was cleaned by rubbing it with fine sand
-
Message 15
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Tuesday, 5th August 2008
I am now getting a clear picture of an invading Roman force clanking along like the Tin Man in unison; and like passing tanks, having a similar effect.... rather alarming.
After some surface treatment in the making,
I had assumed the ancients used well greased metal work and an occasional good scouring.
How they must have hated posting to the wetter latitudes.
Regards, P. -
Message 16
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Tuesday, 5th August 2008
And in my novels, st, I have Greeks using olive oil or animal fat - and a great deal of caution with weapons when at sea!
P. -
Message 17
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 6th August 2008
Hi priscilla,
I've just caught up with this interesting thread. Providing the Roman Army with helmets, shields and body armour was a truly stupendous task; one recent paper estimates that 12-16 million pieces were fabricated. Many weapons and armours must have been used by more than one soldier for reasons of economy.
E_Nik, who for some reason has a poor opinion of the Roman Army, is quite right to point out that iron and copper alloy armour pieces were made in parallel throughout the Roman period. I have never understood why this should be the case since heat-treated steel weapons and armour pieces are superior to copper alloy. But then we don't really know what the intentions of the Roman armourers were; how importance was appearance and ease of repair on the the battlefield?
The really amazing thing about surviving Roman armour is its thinness. Few pieces are more than 2mm in thickness. The material used is also very pure, that is free from slag, this suggests that the iron may have been liquid at some stage in its production. This ought to be impossible in the type of bloomery furnace employed.
There's a lot we don't know about Roman armour!
TP -
Message 18
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 6th August 2008
Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:45 GMT, in reply to TwinProbe in message 17
Have been in touch with my sources. As I believed, musculata ('muscle' cuirasses) squamata (scale armour), helmets and shield bosses could be bronze. However, there is NO evidence of other bronze (including brass) armour during the Imperial period. Even assuming that a lot of it was recycled/melted down, the quantity of segmentata fragments that have been found suggest that if bronze versions existed at least a few fragments would survive. The only evidence for bronze weapons is a collection of bronze heads and butts from what seem to be light throwing spears, found in Dacia - however, I'm still awaiting confirmation that these are thought to be Roman. -
Message 19
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 6th August 2008
Hi Anglo-Norman,
It is certainly surprising that the Romans were using copper alloy for military purposes when excellent iron and steel were available to them.
I have two sources for my statement. The first is (or are)Fulford, Sim and Doig: Journal of Roman Archaeology 2004 Vol 17 - 'The production of Roman ferrous armour; a metallographic survey of material from Britain, Denmark and Germany'. The authors are studying ferrous armour, but make statements such as:
"each soldier was equipped for protection with helmet, body armour and shield, of which the metal components were made of copper alloy or ferrous metal".
"ferrous armour (which) was used alongside that manufactured from copper alloy throughout the early empire".
"use of one material rather than another may have been as much a function of its availability...as the result of any appreciation of a difference in the technical merit of the two materials"
My second source comes from Pat Southern and Karen Dixon: 'The Late Roman Army'. These authors say:
"Lorica hamata was constructed from copper alloy or iron rings"
All these authors are eminent workers in the field of Roman history, although I can't say which individual finds they have in mind.
I'm doubtful if anyone could have manufactured a bronze sword which could outperform a steel weapon but the segmental armour was so flimsy that the choice of metal may not have contributed much. I would select steel ring chain mail myself!
Perhaps it is unwise to be too dogmatic about the material used for the muscle cuirasse, although copper alloy is likely. No muscle cuirasses survive in Britain and I'm not sure any survive anywhere. They are known from sculptures, so their existence is not in doubt.
Regards, TP -
Message 20
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 6th August 2008
Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:27 GMT, in reply to TwinProbe in message 19
Interesting, TwinProbe. I must admit to never having heard of copper alloy hamata, but as I said I'm not an expert - there is so much I've yet to learn. There are even some experts who insist that leather musculata existed, although most still seem to regard such armour as a Hollywoodism.
Of course, the relative flimsyness of armour must take into consideration whether a subarmalis (seems to be a garment with a similar function to a medieval aketon) was worn. No one is really sure what one looked like, or how it was made, although stuffed leather is a possibility. Mail is flimsy stuff - it will stop a cut, but do little to protect against the force of a weapon's impact. The subarmalis probably absorbed that shock, as the aketon would do centuries later. Whether a subarmalis would be worn under segmentata is a moot point, but certainly it would do much to strengthen the plate. After all, the main attack would be spear thrusts, not too much of a threat to segmentata. (Interestingly, some experiments have suggested that before the advent of high quality Gothic armour in the 15th century, mail over padding was a better protection against arrows than plate - the reason being that the mail stopped the point, and the padding absorbed the impact).
Much controversy surrounds the depiction of a Marine of the Ravenna Fleet on his tombstone - he appears to be wearing what some have interpreted as a curious mixture of musculata and squamata. No clue as to the materials, of course, although a copper alloy would make sense as being more rust-resistant (the same reason that sea-service pistols in the 18th century often had brass barrels). -
Message 21
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 6th August 2008
priscilla
"and in my novels"
wow - please provide links
st -
Message 22
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Thursday, 7th August 2008
No, st, I won't - it's not what these boards are about for me. In any case would not want a claim against me if you collapsed with laughter at my audacity - E-nik would have a fit!
The books are a truth, the beer at the board bar is virtual - I'll buy you a silly one there and forget I wrote that.
Regards, P. -
Message 23
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 7th August 2008
boo - coward !!
are they actually published novels ??
how did u do research
i dont do laughter anymore lol -
Message 24
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Thursday, 7th August 2008
Replies to st
Yes
yes
with great difficulty - books
But I do. How sad, st. Try. -
Message 25
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 8th August 2008
priscilla
no i meant laughing at your audacity lol
re - research - you kow where it gives the bibliography - does that mean that u authors have read ALL the mentioned books ??
st
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.