Hello everyone this is my first post and Im going to attept to make some 10th-11th century lamellar. I have used as my reference this great bit of info-
Mamuka Tsurtsumia
The Evolution of Splint Armour in Georgia and Byzantium
Lamellar and Scale Armour in the 10th-12th Centuries.

I would like to make what is referred to as the 2 rivet type as I have not seen a reconstruction done.(if anyone has could they please post up here) I am basing my armour on this info-
[img] [/img]
[img]
[/img]

What Im not sure about is the way they have attached it to the backing.I have cut some card board to try a few different ideas,no1-
The simplest way would be to rivet to a leather backing like so
But you cannot see the lower rivet in the artwork.
No.2-
This way they would be slightly offset and rivet to each other.
No.3-

This seems to be the current trend by having them attached to leather bands then laced together.
So my question is does anyone have an idea of the correct way?
Thanks for your time.

It is possible that the images are not showing rivets at all but are depicting armour with a raised boss in each scale to increase strength.

Seems possible, Dan, but I rather like this theory... Particularly since no other attachment method is shown in the art and considering the existing lame with two rivets that is being using as a context clue. I think that you've already figured out one of the best ways to put it together with your mock up, Adam. Be sure to post progress!

-Gregory

Hi, Adam! Welcome at myArmoury.

You are doing so well so far. Lamellae riveted on leather band really could be the way.
And although my own lamellar armour is of an "ordinary" type - with overlapping plates, the armour of a good friend of mine is made in such manner

[ Linked Image ]

And another two close views

[ Linked Image ]

[ Linked Image ]

Having both constructions in hand and comparing them, I personally would consider the "riveted" type better than my own; and if someday I would make another lamellar armour, it would be most likely riveted one.

I hope these images would be helpful. Of course, if you have questions, I'll be glad to answer.
And as Gregory, I'm also waiting to see your progress.

Is it possible that the artwork is depicting the riveted-band form, with the band behind cut out to match the profile of the plates, i.e. effectively hiding the banding from view at a cursory glance? There would likely still be plenty of banding for structural integrity, I would think

I fail to see how it is an evolution. It took centuries to work out how to make scale armour without the need of a backing foundation (i.e. lamellar) and Dawson decides to put it back in - turning it back into the more primitive scale armour. Then he gets some crappy Indian mail and starts shooting arrows at both of them. Then he uses the dodgy results of those tests to rave about the superiority of his construction, deliberately misinterpreting the sources to support his argument. Is there any real evidence for this "banded riveted" construction? Or is it all just subjective interpretation of a few illustrations?

Dan,
The questions you ask are the same questions I ask also.

All predecessors of modern Bulgaria - Bulgar Khaganate, First and Second Bulgarian Empire, were always tightly closed with Byzantium. And although we have a plenty amount of lamellae found, we don't have even partially preserved lamellar armour. All we have as an evidence is not enough to make any strong conclusion regarding the construction. And AFAIK, the situation is the same on the whole Balkan Peninsula area.
And being well discussed in a period of a decade at least, this interpretation of the construction best explains the period artwork. Is this interpretation correct - I really don't know, and I won't know till a preserved armour will be found.

There is an enormous amount of confusion about scale and lamellar and the distinctions between them. That is the reason for my new book on the subject due out in August. (Link below) I hope it will help to clarify the situation. They are fundamentally different forms, whether they are backed or not. A great deal of the confusion comes from recreationists taking short-cuts that were used historically, primarily by substituting materials, primarily leather for metal.

IMO, the Georgian icons show scale armour not lamellar. There is a reconstruction in the book which I am sure you will find a much better explanation.

Dan, the evidence for lamellar is at least as old as that for scale, and it makes it clear that they are two entirely separate lines of technological development.

Timothy

http://www.thehistorypress.co.uk/index.php/ar...ntury.html

Depends on how you define scale and lamellar. You can turn black into white by redefining things but it just creates confusion if everyone else doesn't use the same definitions. The definitions I used in my book are the same ones used by scholars such as Simon James.

Scale armour consists of small metallic (iron or copper alloy) or organic (leather, rawhide, horn, wood, bone, etc.) plates cut to a regular size and attached to a foundation of textile or leather, such that each scale overlaps some or all of its neighbours. Often the scales are ‘imbricated’, that is, each horizontal row is staggered from the ones directly above and below it (resembling fish or reptile scales), but some scale armour is made with the plates aligned both horizontally and vertically. The direction of overlap of each row is also irrelevant. Most often scale overlaps downwards but some examples overlap upwards. Lamellar, on the other hand, consists of similarly sized plates laced or wired to each other such that there is no need for a foundation. The lacing itself provides structural integrity... Using these definitions, all Bronze Age armour that has been described as lamellar in previous publications is, in fact, scale armour.

Basically, if a foundation is needed to maintain the structure then it is scale, not lamellar. The earliest instance of proper lamellar that I can find dates to the Warring States period in China.

Dan,

you are absolutely right about definitions being the core of the matter. The definition you espouse is IMO defective. For one thing, it makes Roman semi-rigid scale armour into a form of lamellar, which lots of people would surely find strange.

Furthermore, citing James as an authority is not persuasive, for while he may be a fine archaeologist, an armour authority he is not. He is, for example, one of those who proposes that the so-called "thigh pieces" from Dura Europos belong to that fictitious category "laced scale armour", rather than being lamellar.

The short version of my definition is as follows, extracted from my book. There are some qualifications, to be sure, but they are marginal.

"I suggest a simple system, that external small plate armours are divided into three categories, lamellar, scale and a category for which there is no widespread term. The over-arching distinction between the first two is straight forward, – when used in the primary protection zone (such as the torso of a human),

§ Scale armour overlaps downward, and is predominantly mounted on a continuous substrate, usually of textile or leather.

§ Lamellar overlaps upwards, does not have a continuous substrate and its structure is created using some sort of cordage. "

These definitions and the exceptions are further explained in the book, of course. My parameters for them are fundamentally functional.

Ultimately, it with be the audience who decide which sets of definitions they find most comprehensible and useful.

Timothy

Adam, where are the first two pics from?

Is it possible the dots on the armour is lacing instead of rivets? Yesterday I tried out a construction method that made a similar appearance as the first two reliefs.

This construction exposes minimal amount of lacing and is flexible backwards and rigid forward.
The plate are fixed to each other which might explain the gap between the chest and thigh pieces.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200152486430207&set=a.10200152480830067.1073741825.1092453097&type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200152486790216&set=a.10200152480830067.1073741825.1092453097&type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200152486710214&set=a.10200152480830067.1073741825.1092453097&type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200152481510084&set=a.10200152480830067.1073741825.1092453097&type=3&theater

Hope it helps! :)

Makes more sense than any other suggested construction. The Terra Cotta Warriors lamellar was initially thought to have been riveted but later turned out to be laced. The plates had two holes very closely spaced - the lacing went out of one hole and back into the other, leaving a small spot of lacing visible on the outside of the plate.

im no expert, but i've heard that a lamellar armours great weakness is that a hit from a sword or axe that doesnt penetrate will cut the lacing, thus weakening it if a hit happens to land in a similar area, would that method perhaps mean this has less chance of happening

(of course, a partially rivited construction would also partly address these problems of fragility and the fact lots of lacing gets pretty mucky on the campaign trail too.

Try it. Strap a lamellar panel around a punching bag and chop away with swords and axes and see what happens. How many hits like that do you think a person might sustain on his armour in any one battle? The chances of doing enough damage to compromise the integrity of lamellar is negligible.