Talk:Lamellar armour

"Benefits" of leather lamellar

I have removed the following sentence, "Lamellar was an armour that, when made out of materials such as leather, facilitated high mobility for a comparably high level of protection." The sentence does not make a whole lot of sense and the assertion of mobility is contradicted by many comments I've seen from re-enactors. I've seen multiple interpretations that are quite rigid when complete. Mercutio.Wilder 03:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What of Japanese 'loose lacing' lamellar? Theblindsage (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I've heard from re-enactors, I can tell that a properly laced iron lamellar is only about 20% less flexible than a chain mail, while providing much more solid protection. In fact, rows of lamellae are flexible and, moreover, can move rather independently from each other, easily "telescoping" one into another when the wearer's body bends. Also, lamellae varied greatly in size: some armours had them as long as an adult man's palm, and in other cases they were only about 1-1 1/2" in length, what made for great flexibility, as I imagine - quite comparable to a chain mail. 95.79.107.86 (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Lamellar

Hey there, if one of you has the time and motivation to work some additional information from a very interesting text into this article, check out the following link. The man who wrote it is an absolute expert and has already published quite a bit of his work. (Don't worry, I'm not him pretending to be an unknown admirer!) It's a very unusual-looking form of lamellar that he describes, but it does seem to make sense. Check out the link below, and follow the text link if you want to know more. Trigaranus 18:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC) [1]

What he describes is not a lamellar armour per se, but something like a a leather laminar armour, reinforced with iron plates. And, AFAIK, this is actually a misconception, based on archeological findings of lamellae covered with something organic, presumably leather, from one side; it is more viable that rows of lamellae were separated by "gaskets" of soft leather to prevent them from damaging the laces, rather than lamellae being riveted/laced to some strip of hard leather, which would make the armor inflexible. As I've said, correctly laced lamellar was almost as flexible as a chain mail. 5.164.209.229 (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Spartan Army?

What does Sparta have to do with lamellar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.21.59 (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

---

When I read "Mormons" my first thought was: "But their magical underwear isn't lamellar at all...!". Could we please not treat the Book of Mormon as a source for historical events in this encyclopedia, please? Thanks, Trigaranus (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Scale Armor

Can we please stop comparing lamellar armor to scale armor, or saying it evolved from, or into scale armor? Yes, both are composed of little platelets of metal, horn, or leather. But they are fundamentally different in that scale armor attaches to a backing (chainmail or leather) while lamellar is attached only to itself. Theblindsage (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Leather lamellar cuirass - image removed

I've removed this image because:

- the reconstruction is all wrong, and is most likely a 'fantasy' interpretation; - moreover, it does not make sense at all to make a lamellar armour if you have sheets of leather, because:

a) it would be vastly inferior to leather laminar armour in terms of protection; b) laminar armour would be much easier to make, as you do not have to cut leather into small pieces.

Iron lamellar amour makes sense if you have limited access to iron and / or limited production capabilities, being able only to make very small plates. That was the case with Eurasian nomads, who are most likely to invent this type of armour. However, leather comes in large sheets, and was plentyful. So, there was no sense in cutting it into small lamellae and then anyway lacing them one to another, forming horisontal strips. Cutting leather directly into wide strips and assembling a laminar armour from them would have been much easier and faster, also such armour would be much more protecting than a leather lamellar. The Japanese made leather lamellars, indeed, but this is a very special case, and also each leather kozane was covered with a very very thick layer of laquer, which was a crucial part of its strength and is evidently absent on the reconstruction shown on the picture I've deleted.

- it has problems with licensing ("missing source information") and is a candidate for deletion;

Also, the armour shown is likely not a cuirass, as a cuirass usually means rigid body protection.

So, I've added a picture of a more conventional laminar armour instead.

37.112.88.144 (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• The image you substituted is no better than the image you removed, it is absolutely a "fantasy armour". You need to read the references so that you understand what is and is not a lamellar armour. You say that the Japanese use of leather was a "special case", why is that, the Japanese were by far the culture that used lamellar the most, all the samurai armour for hundreds of years was constructed out of lamellar armour and often out of leather (more correctly "rawhide") and whether or not it was lacquered has nothing to do with the validity of leather (rawhide) being used. If you read this reference from Oriental Armour, By H. Russell Robinson P.7 you will understand exactly what lamellar armour is, what it was made from, why it was used, who used it and when it was used. Oriental Armour, By H. Russell Robinson P.7

98.173.238.224 (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

So what ? It's just one point of view, one of many. Do not canonize it. Not even an academic study, just a popular book that shouldn't and can't be used as a single reliable source for the article. It is also very old and does not reflect any of the more recent works on the subject, including more recent archeological evidences, which are numerous. "Rawhide" lamellar outside Japan may be just on of the things from this book which were rejected by more recent researchers. Another one: he calls the Dura Europos horse armour lamellar, while there is absolutely no proof that it wasn't actually a scale, with individual plates sewn onto a foundation layer of something organic that just did not make it to our time. It was found as separate pices of metall. The same goes to the Assyrian armours he mentions - we do not know for sure what particular construction they had, and separate plates with holes in them may easily be attributed either as lamellae or scales.

That Korean thing you've added, it just does not look like a typical lamellar armour. It is some local variation, maybe, with its armoured trousers (?) instead of typical faulds and that rather strange looking gorget. As well, all the Japanese lamellar armour you are speaking about is secondary, originally it had been imported from the Continent in about500 C E, being already fully developed at this point. Jap variation differed from the Continental mainstream by a number of ways (laquered/leather sheathed plates being only one of them). What you call a fantasy armour, the one on the image I've added, at least looks more like a typcal Great Steppe / Chinese set of lamellar armour, except for the mask, of course, which is a latter addition (I sincerely don't know the origin of this foto, however I've seen this set of armour buing attributed as a Chinese Tang era cavalry armour, which at some point managed to get to Japan and was customised there, including the mask).

Again, Japanese lamellar armour from Keiko on IS a very specific case, and NOT the mainstream (such as - Turk, Chinese, Mongolian and Tibetan armours). Saying that the Japanese used lamellar armour "by far the most", you only show signs of ignorance about a millenia of its development before 500 CE, because in the Great Steppe it had already been ubiquitous for hundreds of years when the Japs only started using it. So, currently there is no image in the whole article which would depict what lamellar armour looked like in general. And, the leather kozane. AFAIK, they had a very thick (~0.5 cm may be more) layer of laquer, and that was what made the armour protective. They were rigid, like iron plates, or like horn plates which were used in the Subarctic region of Eurasia, but unlike any leather/hide pieces without a special treatment. The armour on the photo I've deleted... it was not even a real armour supposed to protect from anything. Not to mention it's look.

Seriously, I think that you maybe should consider updating your selection of sources before further editing this article. Look at something more recent, like M.V.Gorelik's "Weapons of the Ancient East" and other works of his (still not the latest and sometimes erroneous, but still good and well supported by historical evidences he used). I don't want to say that the image I've added was the best of the best, however I strongly believe that it was at least better than the current for an article about lamellar armour in general, not about some local variations. E.g. this IS what I'd call a typical lamellar armour. It's from Osprey's as I know, but still looks generally O.K. it's tibetan, and we know alot about XVI-XIX centuries Tibetan lamellar armour, which almoust didn't change since the times of Chingis Khan. 95.79.46.96 (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Why havnt you added any additional sources if you have some, Robinson's book while old has not been discredited, of course new research is always revealing flaws in older publications but as far as this article goes the section cited on the makeup and general construction of lamellar armor is perfectly acceptable as a reliable source as far a Wikipedia sources goes.

• It would be great if you added some additional information and sources so that readers would have a wider range of information to read. Were did you get this information about Japanese lamellar armour being already fully developed by 500 C E? What became the typical samurai lamellar armor (ō-yoroi) did not fully develop until around the 900's unless you have some new information on the subject. Every samurai used a form of lamellar armor from that period until around the 1500's with lamellar armor still being constructed and worn through the 1800's.

• I did not say the Japanese were the oldest users of lamellar, I believe that they were the most intensive users of lamellar armor, the number of surviving Japanese lamellar armors attests to that, how many images of authentic lamellar armors from other cultures can you come up with? By the way "Japs" is a derogatory term and should not be used any more than you would call a German a "kraut", your use of "Jap" just shows your ignorance. What makes the Chinese or Tebetan lamellar armor any more mainstream than the lamellar the samurai used, I believe that is your personal point of view. The lamellar armor image you added has absolutely nothing to do with Japan and was certainly not "customized" there, and that is one reason the image should not be used as since there is no source for the image.

• The lacquer on Japanese armor had nothing to do with the strength of the armor, lacquer was used to protect the rawhide from weather, what are your sources for this "very thick (~0.5 cm may be more) layer of laquer", rawhide is quite a bit different than leather and by the way I requested the deletion of the image you removed from the article due to copyright violation and it has been deleted.

98.173.238.224 (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Laminar Armor

Does it actually exist, or are we repeating our Victorian forebears mistake with 'mail', by grouping all the armor made of bands of anything as 'laminar'?Theblindsage (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Viking lamellar

Without thorough citation, this section should be removed. Other than a few lames found at Birka, in a site that appears to have been specifically used by non-Viking steppe peoples residing in or visiting Birka, there is no evidence of use of lamellar by vikings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.192.248 (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)