Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally?

[Matt Lukes]

But are the plates supposed to be vertical?

I'd say they were.

Not to sound confrontational, but can you demonstrate this using the exact layout of the original Corbridge artifacts? Because I can't.

Firstly, the angle of attachment of the buckles/straps
is perpendicular to the edge of the plates, ...

But you have to bear in mind that the wearer wasn't just standing there he moved around quite a lot and with that motion, the plates, being very mobile relative to one another, would rotate, flex, etc. and as Barry has rightly pointed-out, the girth section isn't necessarily very heavy (the plates were thin- on the order of 0.7mm), and you have 4 belts spreading that weight out, not to mention any that's borne partially by the wearer's hips as he moves. And anyway, as I've mentioned previously, there is common damage to the hinged buckles that appears to be the result of lateral force, exactly what would result if they were angled relative to the 'hang' of the armor.

Diagonally crossing plates, instead of giving you the protection they
were designed to give, open up the neck hole to allow an enemy to
attack your throat more easily, which is about the most vulnerable
unarmoured part of the body. The shoulder guards and the cheek
guards of the helmet between them give some protection, but it's still
vulnerable and largely uncovered. So you want the neck hole to be as
small as possible while still allowing you to breathe. :lol:

I'm afraid this is just incorrect- the cross doesn't increase the size of the neck opening- if anything, they decrease it since the long edge of some plates would result in a deep neckline exposing more of the sternum. Play with cutouts or Photoshop some real artifacts and you'll see.

Actually the Newstead is infinitely superior in providing protection
than the Corbridge A - the Corbridge B being an intermediate between
the two, with the leathers between the shoulders and girths being
replaced by metal hooks & eyes. This becomes a total replacement of
the external leathers, including the horizontasl ones, in the Nwestead. Byron is right. The whole point of replacing external leathers with
metal hooks & eyes is for better protection. An enemy can slash you
open from gizzard to beakfast-time by cutting the external leathers
holding your Corbridge together. He can't if you have a Newstead.

I don't mean to be a pain, I really don't :lol: , but again I have to disagree- I've built and worn both types and I don't find the Newstead to be significantly superior to the Corbridge with respect to protective value. There's an awful lot of area on a cuirass to hit, and that's only if one gets past the man simply moving out of the way, and then his shield- what then is the liklihood of cutting a small lether part on the armor? Pretty minimal. And with 5 or 6 laces, you'd have to be Achilles to cut all at once :wink: Cutting the lateral breast buckle won't significantly comprimise the protection of the armor, and you'd have to cut both vertical belts to really cause a problem- again unlikely. Given that soldiers were in battles quite infrequently and that training damage and parts wearing out is far more likely to be the cause of repairs being necessary, it's only logical to realize that the maintnance issue can be reduced significantly by introducing metal fasteners instead of leather ones.

Plus the quartermaster is going to love you, as you've got a lorica
which will last you a full 25 years, without ever needing to be handed
in for replacement of the external leathers. (Okay, so the internal
leathers will still need replacing, but these should last longer than the
external leathers, which have far more stress on them, and are the
ones exposed to the sword cuts of the enemy.) The downside of the
Newstead is more rididity over the Corbridge. But so what. I'd prefer
protection and durability to the small loss of flexibility, anyday. And,
because of that rigidity, the shoulder guards hang the way they are
designed to do, and don't flap about at a diagonal angle. 8)

There you've hit the nail on the head :wink: Yes, the metal fittings are more durable in combat, but that's more significant a fact the other 99.99% of the time. And yes the Newstead is a bit more rigid than the Corbridge, but not so much as to really be so significant- the human body doesn't bend so much in the thoracic region, so the armor being fairly rigid there isn't bad, and yes the wider breast and back plates do offer a bit more restriction to the movement of the shoulders, but I don't think it's appreciable really either if one is used to it. Indeed the rigidity of the breast and back is better protection though because they're rigid. But since we don't have an articulated artifact, you can't say the shoudler wasn't angled- it's all about the exact shape and orientation of the mid-collar plate and because the back plate's corner is angled, not straight, it seems rather more likely that they were angled just like those of the Corbridge. Angled is better protection too- downward blows will deflect more- the sloped vs. flat armor plate idea- the former is ALWAYS superior.

Ambrosius/Mike[/quote][/quote]