+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Reenactment (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Roman Re-Enactment & Reconstruction (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? (/showthread.php?tid=9708)
lorica seg - brennivs - tony drake - 06-21-2007
Svlla, Hibernicvs has hit the nail on the head
D The surface of my Lorica, I planished I did not want a smooth surface as if it came of a modern rolling mill . It also helps curve the plates and puts a bit of a spring in them
Regards Brennivs
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - Hibernicus - 06-21-2007
Hammer 20g steel and it gets stronger... hammer those 16g upper shoulder plates and you get TOUGH! Some of our guys still fight Roman in SCA and the hammered segs are far more dent resistent than the non-hammered.
Re: lorica seg - Matt Lukes - 06-22-2007
Quote:Svlla, Hibernicvs has hit the nail on the head
Yeah but how wide are his breast plates in relation to the back plates? And at how much of an outward angle are the mid-collar plates mounted on the upper back plate? Both of these things dictate the amount of angle necessary for the breastplates to meet. I've actually photocopied and cut out the diagrams of all the Corbridge Hoard upper sections and assembled them to see how they'd have had to have worked and they ALL need some angling- no amout of twist makes a difference because the breast plates are all narrower than the back so unless there's an inordinant amount of overlap on the back, the breastplates simply CANNOT meet vertically. Have a look:
![[Image: PDR_0008a.jpg]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v351/Panzerknacker/SPQR/PDR_0008a.jpg)
This is Cuirass 1 of the Corbridge Hoard. The two halves joined with the back plates all horizontal, which the vertical fasteners demonstrate must have been the case, the mid collar plates' positions have the breastplates angled out. When the mid-collar plates are simply curved, in the second picture, the breast plates don't meet because they're narrower than the back plates. If you force the breastplates together, third and fourth pictures, the mid collar plates are bent in and the whole thing is just a mess. If, however, you simply bring the breastplates together angled, nothing is distorted, and the shape is that of the human upper body- pictures five and six. All the Corbridge cuirasses are this way- the mid-collar plates are mounted such that the breastplates are angled outwards at least some, in the cases of cuirassess 3 and 4 it's quite significant. Thus if the back plates are horizontal, the breast plates MUST come together at an angle, there's no other way. How modern recreations are put together is the thing that's confusing this issue- how they are isn't evidence of anything other than that's how the makers did it. Only examining REAL segmentatae can it be demonstrated how the design worked. :wink:
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - Magnus - 06-22-2007
Matt, you should have been a crime scene reconstructor.
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - sulla felix - 06-22-2007
Matt,
That is a pretty convincing demonstration. Interestingly I noticed that H R Robinson's first reconstruction of a Corbridge Type A (as seen in Fig 1.6 of Bishop's Lorica Segmentata 1 : A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour) has the breastplates crossing diagonally. The Connolly drawing also indicates this, and shows the "V" shape required in his back view of the cuirass.
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - sulla felix - 06-22-2007
Brennivs,
I like the finish on the seg. It definitely takes the "modern" look off the steel plate.
Interesting point about different body shapes too, which begs the question were segs made for indivduals or just mass produced?
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - Matt Lukes - 06-22-2007
The well-preserved Roman sheet iron plates are actually nice and smooth- the Bank of London breastplate, for example- which is part of why Drs. David Sim and Mike Bishop advocate the idea of at least finish rolling as opposed to hammering...
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - sulla felix - 06-22-2007
Are they "flat" smooth?
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - Marcus Caecilius Avitus - 06-22-2007
This is really useful Matt, but you also start to compose a counter argument. If your suggesting that the crossing angle in picture 5 is representative; look at the bucle mounts :!: They won't work properly. If this was a design feature, surely the buckles would be mounted differently.
If you take a look closer at picture 3 you can see a getle curve across the back (left to right), representative of an average upper torso. and the fit in picture 3 doesn't look too far out.
Couple that with the fact that the same may happen on the front chest plates (depending upon the torso shape).
Matt, how do your seg's hang when worn, with a suitable subarmalis? The relative plate position is going to be different when the armour is being worn when compared with not surely?
I'm not suggesting the there is no diagonal crossing of the plates, I just don't think it was as pronounced as your suggesting. Also back to Barry's original point. The plates shouldn't be designed (altered from the originals) to ensure this cross, but make them to the pattern and take it from there.
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - sulla felix - 06-22-2007
Quote:Also back to Barry's original point. The plates shouldn't be designed (altered from the originals) to ensure this cross, but make them to the pattern and take it from there.
Mark,
If you make them to the "patterns" (closely following the original Corbridge finds) then they have to cross (and H R Robinson seems to have thought the same in his reconstruction of a Corbridge A). That is the point Matt is making, and that is what I have discovered when assembling. It seems as though you have to do things to the plates (ignore the breastplate to back plate measurement ratio on the actual artefacts for example) to force them to fit neatly and vertically. That is not to suggest that vertical is wrong (and indeed the angle of the breastplate fittings is intriguing), just that the actual artefacts seem to be indicating something different. That is what makes this "hobby" so interesting (and infuriating sometimes!)
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - Matt Lukes - 06-22-2007
Quote:This is really useful Matt, but you also start to compose a counter argument. If your suggesting that the crossing angle in picture 5 is representative; look at the bucle mounts :!: They won't work properly. If this was a design feature, surely the buckles would be mounted differently.
The buckles work just fine as I mentioned previously as a counter to that very suggestion. The belt is leather is flexible, and there's no issue with it rotating around the point connection of it to the spike of the buckle. Would it make more sense to us that the fittings be mounted to account for the angle? Sure, but that doesn't mean the Romans didn't have a different idea or maybe another reason we haven't thought of. The fact remains that it works, and although there is some stress on the fittings, the commonly-seen damage to these very fittings is consistent with the stress an angle would put on them.
Quote:If you take a look closer at picture 3 you can see a getle curve across the back (left to right), representative of an average upper torso. and the fit in picture 3 doesn't look too far out.
And if you take a closer look at picture 4 you'll see that forcing the breast plates this way causes the joint to the mid-collar plates to bend IN at the neckline- that's simply never going to fit a human being :lol: The gentle curve across the back can be achieved the crossed way, I simply didn't bother to bend the paper because that's not the area being considered here. A bend there increases the amount of cross the breastplates adopt actually.
Quote:Matt, how do your seg's hang when worn, with a suitable subarmalis? The relative plate position is going to be different when the armour is being worn when compared with not surely?
Well since I went back to the originals and realized just how they're put together, mine hang just like I point out above:
![[Image: PDR_0040b.jpg]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v351/Panzerknacker/PDR_0040b.jpg)
The dimensions of the plates in the photo are taken from Cuirass 3 of the Corbridge Hoard- and that's about 1cm thick sheepskin under the collar.
However the question here is about how the real thing worked- not this or that modern maker's armour. We can affect the fit by simply changing the angle of the connections and the size of the plates, which is probably what accounts for people finding that they don't have to cross the breast plates much or even have them meet horizontally.
Quote:I'm not suggesting the there is no diagonal crossing of the plates, I just don't think it was as pronounced as your suggesting. Also back to Barry's original point. The plates shouldn't be designed (altered from the originals) to ensure this cross, but make them to the pattern and take it from there.
I'm not actually suggesting anything about how pronounced the cross is- that's really cuirass 1 from the Corbridge Hoard, not just my version of it. And the amount of cross is only what's necessary to bring the two ends of the neck curve together, no more. The angle of the plates is the same whether they overlap this much or less- it's certainly not necessary that the ends of the neck curve meet, but it's desirable I would think. And it's DEFINITELY not an issue of altering the design to ensure the cross, it's actually probably more the other way around- that modern reproductions often are altered to reduce the cross. As I mentioned previously, of the 6 upper body sections in the Hoard, some require a little less angle for the breast plates to meet, some rather more, but cuirass 1 is a good average example.
I would suggest to anyone who disagrees should try to come up with a way to make the ORIGNAL Corbridge artifacts adopt any different conformation than the one I've found that they would, without altering any connections- make the same cutouts I've made and play with them so you can see just what the shapes and layout will and won't allow. Photos I post may not convince you, but seeing for yourself what is possible will. :wink:
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - Gaius Julius Caesar - 06-22-2007
Then again, to throw a curve ball, you could take the 2 buckle route, which helps to keep the pltes on my
cor c verticle. I know you hate the idea Matt, but seems a logical precuror to the Newstead variant. True, there are only sculptural evidence of such a setup, but, I like it!
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - Matt Lukes - 06-22-2007
Quote:Then again, to throw a curve ball, you could take the 2 buckle route, which helps to keep the pltes on my
cor c verticle. I know you hate the idea Matt, but seems a logical precuror to the Newstead variant. True, there are only sculptural evidence of such a setup, but, I like it!
Nope, no physical evidence, artifacts contradict the sculptures (the sculptures show armor that's radically different than any actually known), and it's really unnecessary to have two buckles :wink: It's not them that keeps your breastplates vertical, it's the angles at which the back, mid-collar, and breastplates are attached to one another and their sizes.
But why would you say that'd be a precursor to the Newstead? The Newstead also has only a single fastener on the front, and the only reason it has more than one on the back is that the back plates are really big, and even then I've found it not strictly necessary since things are so rigid.
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - Gaius Julius Caesar - 06-23-2007
Does it not keep the plates vertical though?
And there are many things which only sculptural evidence is used to back up the use of. Besides, i am not saying it is so, but I can't find an argument that tells me it is not a possibility.
And how many are actually known? a handfull from all accounts.
I like the idea of the 2 buckles at the front, as it gives a psychological boost, knowing that it will take more that a single lucky stroke of a gladius to cut the fastening of my heart protection, call it a backup system.
That is also the logic I would think was used to advance to the Newstead, as it is harder to cut through a metal fastening, not only the vertical plates. Perhaps no finds are available because the users were more likely to survive combat, reatehr than the unlucky soul whose single strapped armour ended up in the smithies junk box! :wink:
When I finally order a newstead, I will expect total accuracy then, no cheating or browbeating!! :lol: Or to be totally accurate, a Stillfried! :wink:
Where do you find the info on these finds, as I seem to come up a blank mostly? And also, what period would they cover? Would the Neidermormter helmets go with it? and what kind of gladius?
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - sulla felix - 06-23-2007
But are the plates supposed to be vertical? I would suggest that diagonally crossing plates actually provide more protection to your heart (but if you are exposing the this area to the enemy then you probably deserve to die anyway having forgotten all your training
). The plates also tend to stay crossed even without the strap in place.I understand your points Byron, but the available archaeological evidence just does not support two straps.
It is surprising that people automatically assume that the Newstead is in some way better than the Corbridge purely because it appears in the archaeological record after the Corbridge types. Process is not necessarily progress.