Talk:Lorica squamata

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

This article has been automatically rated as Stub-Class by the Military history WikiProject because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove |auto=yes from the {{WPMILHIST}} template above. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the |class= parameter in the {{WPMILHIST}} template above and removing the stub template from the article.

[edit] Merge

It is proposed that Lorica Squamata be merged with this article. It was only when I had written Lorica squamata that I found the Lorica Squamata article existed! If the consensus is to merge, I will volenteer to do it. Gaius Cornelius 18:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Done.

[edit] Upward thrusts

What is the basis for the claim:

Much has been written about scale armour’s supposed vulnerability to an upward thrust, but this is probably greatly exaggerated.

The "greatly exaggerated" idea seems to me to be obviously true; if the lorica in our photograph was mounted on cloth, it would clearly offer no protection whatsoever against upward thrusts since the only connection between rows which might hinder a blade from sliding between them, is the cloth backing. -- Securiger 03:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. If you'd move the tip of a sharp implement upwards with some speed, it would slip over a scale, then below the scale above, and through the fabric. Shinobu 15:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)