Some Evidence for Quilted Roman Armor

[Erik Hildinger]

It seems that the Romans used quilted armor.  A figure on the arch of Constantine and another on a 4th century sarcophagus pretty clearly show this.  For pictures and a fuller discussion, please see my blog.

https://www.erikhildinger.com/blog/a-roman-armor-that-has-been-missed

[caldrail]

I think the term 'quilted armour' needs to be used carefully. The misinterpretation stems from common use in role paying games where the protection value is important rather than the usage. Articles like aketons or gambesons are used in two contexts, firstly as an undergarment for metal armour, secondly as a cheap alternative to metal.

Such articles are known to have seen use from the eleventh century and it seems odd that we don't see more continuous use if the Roman soldier is so equipped. There are of course alternative interpretations. In the first image, the armour appears as a top layer, but might easily be metal plates sewn onto a supporting garment. Remember that the monument would have been painted when fist displayed so we've lost important info. It would be interesting to hear the results of forensic archeology in this regard.

The second image is more convincing but again notice how thick that soldiers undergarments already are.  And he wants another layer? It could still be an alternative style of scale armour. 

I do take the point but the evidence is not compelling. If there's anything contextual to settle the matter fine, but until I see such evidence, I'll view these images as a curious but unsubstantiated possibility.

[Erik Hildinger]

Good points.  All the same, I still think that quilted armor must have been used.  Something much like it must have been worn under ring-armor, and its protective qualities would have been obvious.  The cost of equipping large numbers of men, particularly during the financally-strapped late Empire when many of them, such as limitanei, defended the border in forts or from the walls of cities and seldom fought in pitched batttles argues strongly for the use of cheap but adequate protection.

Best regards!

Erik

https://www.erikhildinger.com

[caldrail]

There's no 'must have' about it. If you can point to something in the Roman sources or archeology that specifically mentions such quilted undergarments, you've scored a point. I have to say I've not seen anything like that.

[Erik Hildinger]

I'm thinking of something like this from section XV of De Rebus Bellicis:

"Inter omnia quae ad usum bellicum prouida posteritatis cogitauit antiquitas, thoracomachum quoque mira utilitas ad leuamen corporis

armorum ponderi et asperitati subiecit.  Hoc enim uestimenti genus, quod de coactili ad mensuram et tutelam pectoris humani conficitur,

de mollibus lanis timoris sollicitudo sollertia magistra composuit ut hoc inducto primum lorica uel cliuanus aut his similia fragilitatem

corporis ponderis asperitate non laederent: membra quoque uestientis inter armorum hiemis que discrimen tali solacio adiuta labori

sufficiant."

[caldrail]

Sufficient? I'll give you credit for an interesting comeback, but please note important aspects.

Firstly the document only survives as a medieval copy. Whilst that probably hasn't affected the text greatly, the document showed be approached with some caution.

Secondly, the document relates not on the current state of the Roman military but how it might be possible to improve it. In other words, a suggestive text rather in the same vein as De Re Militaris.

Thirdly, the origin of the document is not precisely dated but reckoned to be around the 4th or 5th century, probably toward the latter. The Roman legion of this time is a very different beast to the classic legion we all know and love. What must be considered is the influence of 'barbarian' equipment, since the standardisation of the legion at this late stage had all but gone.

Fourthly - and directly referencing your post - to who and what period is the author discussing? 

I will concede that padded protection was not unknown to the Romans (I'm thinking of arm and leg protection of gladiators, though this was not to protect against opposing weapons but to safeguard the fighter from hampering his own efforts by colliding with his own shield) thus I will give you a point - you came back with supporting information. However the connection with earlier legionary practice is too tenuous. You make an interesting point, but no, it isn't sufficient

[Erik Hildinger]

You keep slugging, Caldrail.  I'll give you that!

It seems that I'm more willing to give weight to the evidence that's out there on this question than you are.

Regards,

Erik

 

 

[caldrail]

No. You're jumping on a bandwagon. I agree padded protection saw some limited application in the Roman Empire - we know that. I agree that the use of padded protection was discussed in a late empire treatise on how to improve the Roman legion - you offered the excerpt. What I'm telling you is that you shouldn't be so quick to assume fact from very fragmentary suggestions. You offer two reliefs on Roman monuments to somehow prove that a garment not openly mentioned in context of legionary use was in actually in widespread use, and as I pointed out, your interpretation of those reliefs can be questioned - there is no context to confirm those garments are exactly what you say they are.

A major point to be contended is pseudo-statistical, and that alone should make anyone wary. You claim padded protection must have been in common use because of some kind of aggregative impression of production scale. Bear in mind that the legions utilised artisans within their ranks and employed civilian artisans whenever necessary. Also bear in mind that artisans did not have to create metal armour suits in one go. They had an option to make parts constantly and store them for future use/sale. Also realise that although the legion supplied the gear in most circumstances, it was a hire purchase agreement with the legionary, who had an option to buy his own outside of military logistics, and the question of what happened to all that armour when legionaries retired from service is not adequately answered.

You could argue chainmail is a little different, but the Romans did not seem to suffer difficulties with it any more than the other users of such armour before and since, and had the advantage of a more organised supply network.

Slugging it out? You have to sometimes. Otherwise we could spread all sorts of nonsense and find ourselves looking back at historical subjects with modern bias, invention, and fantasy.