Full Version: Seg plates - variable thicknesses
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I'm positive I read somewhere that seg plates could be of variable thicknesses; Thicker on the shoulders, thinner on the girth hoops, etc. But for the life of me I can't find where I read it.

Does anyone have any clues, or information?

Quote:I'm positive I read somewhere that seg plates could be of variable thicknesses; Thicker on the shoulders, thinner on the girth hoops, etc. But for the life of me I can't find where I read it.

Does anyone have any clues, or information?


One place I read this is: ... gmenta.htm

They say that 0.8mm-0.9mm is good for the girth hoops and 1mm-1.2mm is good for the shoulder guards.

I don't know were they got these measurements though...

Best regards,
Thanks Jef. It wasn't there that I read it, but it's good to see it's out there somewhere else, and the measurements are pretty much what I thought, give or take. I also seem to remember that the lesser shoulder guards are inbetween the two thicknesses given there, and the breast plates are also of the thickest variety.

Dank u wel.
The Newstead reconstruction plan from Mike Bishop (we owe him a lot for this) states that

"the iron plates of the shoulder sections are 1mm (0,04 in) in thickness, those of the girth hoops 0,7 mm (0,05 in) thick."

(you can find the plans under )

I think Mike wrote somewhere that these figures are guideline values, so they certainly differed from armour to armour.
Graag gedaan Jim.

Thanks Florian,

Is there any proof out there that Corbridge A segs were likewise constructed out of variable thickness plates?

Best regards,
Cheers Florian.

Please don't tell me it's in LS Vol.1 which is here in the room with me. :oops:

I did go through it, but obviously not thoroughly enough. Thanks for the link as well, that says it all. I just need to go back to the LS Volumes and check all the data.
Tarbicus and Mummius, you are both welcome! Big Grin

But I have to confess a great error! :oops:

0,7 mm are NOT 0,05 in, but 0,03 in. Please correspond your future reconstructions accordingly (= not with 0,05 inches thick girth hoops!!!)

Now that we discuss armour construction - when a rivet pops on my cuirass, or if a leather belt breaks, then I simply use copper rivets for the makeshift repair, because the copper rivets are so wonderfully easy to work with. I think to have read somewhere that some of the rivets on one (or several?) of the Corbridge fragments were made from copper, not copper alloy as is usually the case.
Does anybody know more about this?

Thank you in advance![/quote]
As I recall, the chapter in Bishop and Coulston (first edition!) on construction techniques said that rivets tend to have a low zinc content, maybe 5 percent, so they are more "coppery" in color than hinges and other fittings (which I think average around 15 percent). So a lot of us just use copper rivets--easy to get and "close enough"!

Thank you Matthew! Big Grin

Bishop & Coulston, 191:

"There seem to have been three types of orichalcum in use, broadly speaking. First there was the sort used for sheet metal fittings, such as 'lorica segmentata' fittings, with an 80/20 (copper/zinc) composition. The rivets used to fix these to the armour, on the other hand, generally had a higher copper content (85/15 to 90/10) which meant they were not only softer (and thus better as rivets) but also a different colour (more coppery than the 'golden' sheet fittings). This is best seen on fittings preserved in anaerobic conditions. The third alloy of this kind, used for producing cast items, included a proportion of lead, which improved the flow of the alloy in the mould."

[Footnote 38, page 227: cp. Bishop 1989d, Table 2 Nos. 3, 7, 9. Rivets: loc.cit. Nos. 4 and 8. Lead: loc. cit. No.2; id. 1989c 13.

1989c= 'Belt fittings in Buxton museum', in: Arma 1, 11-13.
1989d= 'The composition of some copper alloy artefacts from Longthorpe', in: Arma 1, 20-24.
Thank YOU, Flavius! Clearly I misremembered that bit. The old brain is turning to oatmeal... Got the general idea right, at least.

Quote:Thank YOU, Flavius! Clearly I misremembered that bit.

Ah, that's ok - I forgot it too. I found out I had even heavily underlined the passage in B&C! (oatmeal :? )

Can I ask you a question? According to your homepage, your reconstruction of a Newstead is based on the Stillfried finds, with the male vertical fasteners riveted to the inside of the topmost girlde hoop, and with only one rivet! Does this make the curiass more flexible than the usual method of two rivets per male fastener?

Thank you in advance! Big Grin
Good question! If I ever finish the thing, I might have a good answer for you. Actually, thinking about it, I don't think the hooks move at all. There is only one rivet, true, but they are riveted to the BACK of the plate and stick out through a hole. So they're not going anywhere.


Ave, Flavius Promotus--

At Legio VI Victrix (USA), we have made several examples of the revised Newstead on the Stillfried pattern (as well as Zugmantel and Iza variants), fastening the hooks with one rivet as you describe. It doesn't make the cuirass any more flexible or easier to disassemble.

We've also varied the plate thickness on the shoulder, chest and girth sections as per Mike Bishop's findings. An article by our own Dr. Lee Arik Greenberg on our Newstead reconstruction is in the latest edition of JRMES. A little photo essay on putting on the Newstead can be found here:
Thank's to both Matthew and (the other) Flavius!

I know the article from Dr. Greenberg already well (both the internet version and the one in the last JRMES volume) - very informative!

Do you know any other sources from where I can get more information about the Stillfried slot system on the girdle hoops?

I've once read one of the first find reports from Austria, but it did not contain too much information, and then I had to spend too much of my temporal resources for footwear questions :?
(not that footwear isn't interesting, either...)