Quote:Not to disagree with you...but when somebody claims they are making a "replica", I think it is important to determine just what they mean by that.

Quote:If you actually read the thread the point is crossing breast plates which, if you make a "replica" of the actual evidence, IMHO you simply cannot avoid, unless of course you have some evidence to the contrary

Quote:Matt has presented evidence.

Quote:I have yet to see anybody else really do that in this thread

Quote:Empirical analysis can only be useful if it is based upon observations relative to the actual evidence IMHO.

Quote:

ambrosius:2i3bnsbq Wrote:

sulla felix:2i3bnsbq Wrote: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.

Quote:

Ambrosius Wrote: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,

Quote:

Ambrosiu Wrote: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.

Quote: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 Newstead. 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.

Quote: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.

Quote: 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:

Quote: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.

Quote: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)

Quote: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.

Quote:And as you and Barry have to bear in mind, the internal leathers
are what are supposed to allow for the plates to flex relative to each
other wherever the internal leathers are placed. If you ain't got
internal leather between plates, then they ain't supposed to flex at
that particular junction! Look at the shoulder guards - they have
internal leathers to allow them to flex. Look at the abdominal plates -
they have internal leather to allow them to flex. Look at the junctions
between the two pectoral plates - no internal leather
That's becuase they were not designed to flex relative to each other
They were just meant to hang there in a vertical position. And this is
the clue as to what shape the subarmalis must have been - so as to
allow the plates to hang vertically.

Quote:150+ segs and the 10's of thousands of man hours of use we've put them through does not make me "historicaly right" but it gives me a unique perspective. Based on that, accumulated stress on fittings, attachment points and straps becomes "in your face" evident.

The breast plates in the pic do slightly cross, but that will be lessened when the subarmalis is added. The breast plate is longer, (also bottom, middle and top back plates, but then the wearer is long (up and over the shoulder measurement).. 24", average guy is 21", smaller guys 19". If the plates were shorter the upper most torso plate would be in his armpit and he would not be able to let his arms hang.

The factors in "squareness" are caused by the angles of the top, mid and breast collar plates where they overlap; the angle at which the lobate hinge is attached between the mid and top back plates; and the twist in the mid collar plate. Very subtle adjustments at any point cause the breastplate to ride square.

Add in a subarmalis made to fit and everything lines up square.

The same adjustments made to one man's shoulder plates will cause the shoulder elements to ride very differently on another man's shoulders

We do not know the measurements of the men the Corbridge hoard plates were made for. We know that segs must fit to maximize comfort, protection and functionality. The armor, when made to those factors, is comfortable to wear, work in and fight in... thus more durable.

When straps are under stress such as when the buckles and straps do not line up they tend to break sooner or stretch more.

Quote:Side note: We've often joked that the Corbridge hoard was left behind because those sections sat in the armorer's shop for months and months, unused because being small they fit very few soldiers stationed there. I have a small pile of unused small seg sections that fit no one, but we keep them around becasue, who knows, someday they might!

Quote:Bishops prefers a squarer fit and my experience backs that theory.

Quote:Perhaps Sean is right and there were OTHER plates that hung vertically. Perhaps someday OTHER plates will be found. But hanging over-sized mis-shaped plates in a vertical position with no supporting evidence is speculative at best, and pure fantasy at worst.

Quote:

marsvigilia:3pnz2scp Wrote:Perhaps Sean is right and there were OTHER plates that hung vertically. Perhaps someday OTHER plates will be found. But hanging over-sized mis-shaped plates in a vertical position with no supporting evidence is speculative at best, and pure fantasy at worst.

There's a Kalkriese plate that looks like it hung vertically (see a previous post I made http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... 642#147642 ), simply because the shape looks like the neck opening would be wide enough. It's when we get to later developments in the seg that the plates are different to that.

Just wondering about the Newstead. Maybe it went back to vertical and the design went full circle.