+- 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)
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - marsvigilia - 07-05-2007
Quote:Marsvigilia:3jdpeuds Wrote:But if armor is made that directly and deliberately contradicts the known historical evidence, how are these not fantasy pieces?
That's your arguement with Hib, not with me. Don't drag me into the segmentata design jihad part of this thread :lol:
I did not say that you were making fantasy pieces. But that is part of this thread. There is nothing wrong with fantasy pieces per se. I don't own any Conan Barbarian swords from Albion for example. But they are fine things to hang on a wall. As a reenactor however I do my best to conform to the historical record. I may not always succeed. Nor may it always be possible. But that should be the goal rather than "If we change, this, and do this differently, look we can do it better than the Romans." In the first place I doubt that it is truly an improvement and secondly if it's not as accurate as it could be then what is the point?
Quote:Marsvigilia:3jdpeuds Wrote:The box? Do you think the Romans used wooden boxes like we use plastic trash bags?
No, but I do think that they were used to keep thing from getting underfoot. Wooden boxes and baskets were the Rubbermaid tubs of the day. A well-crafted box is just a workaday container - although to modern sensabiliies a wooden box is anything but mundane.
True. And the items in there may have been of only mediocre value. There was no cache of gold for example. And miscellaneous items often get dumped together. But that is a far cry from saying that it is trash.
Quote:You are ignoring the point of my question, however - how do you deny the use of the items to the hostiles, since you don't have the capabilities to destroy them?
I suggested several easy ways of denying use. Segmentata leathers can be cut, the hinges twisted apart, the plates bent double or twisted, or smashed with a sledge type hammer. Spear tips can be broken off. Etc. Etc. Instead the armor is mashed together but more or less neat. Spear tips were even tied together in a bundle. This may not have been treasure for the ages (except to us) but it neither was it being treated as trash. Scattering in a pit and burying is much more effective method of denial of use than packing in a box where if found it will all be nicely together.
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - Gaius Julius Caesar - 07-05-2007
Perhaps it eas more expedient to dump a box of lower value items, which would impede a clean getaway, when there were things of higher vale which you wanted to take. A box items needing repair, would take lower priority over a bundle of intact spears, lorica, dolabrae, if you were moving out. And why unpack it, and chuck it down the well, when you can just dispose of the lot in a oner? Maybe oneday to return?
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - marsvigilia - 07-05-2007
Quote:Maybe oneday to return?
Thank you. That is my point. This was low value perhaps, but not worthless, not trash.
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - Gaius Julius Caesar - 07-05-2007
Welll, much that we discard today is not valueless, but still regarded as 'trash'! My car, to me is priceless! But I'm sure the garage workjing on it considers it a pile of junk!! :lol: :lol: :lol: And wishes I would throw it in the trash!!!!!! 8)
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - marsvigilia - 07-05-2007
Quote:Welll, much that we discard today is not valueless, but still regarded as 'trash'! My car, to me is priceless! But I'm sure the garage workjing on it considers it a pile of junk!! :lol: :lol: :lol: And wishes I would throw it in the trash!!!!!! 8)
Ah yes and the Romans threw much away. Trash pits are a treasure trove for archaeologists. But these items weren't thrown away. They were buried in a box. Possibly from enemies. Doubtless with the possibility of future retrieval in mind. This was simply not the way Romans, nor anyone else disposed of trash.
This whole idea of the hoard being trash was simply Sean's attempt to rationalize disregarding the evidence of how the breast plates were sized, shaped, and ultimately how they would have had to be worn (ie crossed or vertical)
There is no rational reason to disregard this evidence. And no historical justification to make the breast plates double the size of the archaeological pieces.
Oh, by the way, when was the last time you threw away money?
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - Gaius Julius Caesar - 07-05-2007
Quote:Gaius Julius Caesar:2zv9ee8n Wrote:Welll, much that we discard today is not valueless, but still regarded as 'trash'! My car, to me is priceless! But I'm sure the garage workjing on it considers it a pile of junk!! :lol: :lol: :lol: And wishes I would throw it in the trash!!!!!! 8)
Ah yes and the Romans threw much away. Trash pits are a treasure trove for archaeologists. But these items weren't thrown away. They were buried in a box. Possibly from enemies. Doubtless with the possibility of future retrieval in mind. This was simply not the way Romans, nor anyone else disposed of trash.
This whole idea of the hoard being trash was simply Sean's attempt to rationalize disregarding the evidence of how the breast plates were sized, shaped, and ultimately how they would have had to be worn (ie crossed or vertical)
There is no rational reason to disregard this evidence. And no historical justification to make the breast plates double the size of the archaeological pieces.
Oh, by the way, when was the last time you threw away money?
Actually, money is thrown out quite often. And sean is not the first or only person to promote the idea of it being 'trash'
Perhaps the person who discarded the box, down a well was it?, was not the person who filled the box up. The choice was made for expediency, and a cursory examination, if it was examined at all, wa enough to convince the person deciding what came ,and what was dumped, that this box of tat was not a useful load.
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - Hibernicus - 07-11-2007
Trash? I believe that I used the term "junk". Not the same thing. Though junk could be trash that's not yet been thrown away.
I have a junk drawer in the kitchen and my workspace has its share of "Hibernican Hoard" junk boxes. Interestingly, when we moved out of our previous Workshop in February we made several trips to the trash bins . A local resident scrounged all the metal bits and such that we tossed.. perhaps I should have buried it!
I'll have thise replicas done later than sooner. My apologies for the delays but I've been very busy making necessary needed improvements to my house.
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - Magnus - 07-11-2007
Guys, I wouldn't argue stupid semantics about junk vs garbage. Like arguing tissue vs kleenex.
Who throws money away Byron? If you know someone who does this, can I pm you my address? I'll take it.
I have a hard time believing that the corbridge hoard is trash. Irregardless of why it is there though, the reason for it's being does not have any bearing on how the plates are put together. A logical reason for which constructing it differently hasn't been provided that contravenes the original pieces, given that they obviously functioned quite well.
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - Gaius Julius Caesar - 07-11-2007
I think there are actually figures for how much money gets thrown away every year, but that is not the point. if it was stashed and the box was dumped, the person who stashed it may have had no control or knowledge?
not beyond the realm of possibility I would think
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - Gaius Julius Caesar - 07-11-2007
except thay are almost 2000 years old, are corroded together and not 100% intact? Who can truely say how thay are supposed to fit? And is that the one where the hinges are rivetted together so the hinge doesn't function? they are not new pieces by all account.
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - marsvigilia - 07-12-2007
Quote:I think there are actually figures for how much money gets thrown away every year, but that is not the point. if it was stashed and the box was dumped, the person who stashed it may have had no control or knowledge?
not beyond the realm of possibility I would think
The point that Sean was attempting to make was that this was junk/trash that was being abandoned and that therefore we should not consider the shapes to be reliable. If you are saying that the person that abandoned it didn't even know the contents then that undermines the position Sean was taking.
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - marsvigilia - 07-12-2007
Quote:except thay are almost 2000 years old, are corroded together and not 100% intact? Who can truely say how thay are supposed to fit? And is that the one where the hinges are rivetted together so the hinge doesn't function? they are not new pieces by all account.
Yes they are corroded, but they didn't shrink. This isn't a t-shirt thrown in the dryer. There is no way that corrosion would make the pieces smaller. Just these breast plates. All of them more or less uniformly.
Face it the historical pieces can NOT fit together as Sean advocates. That is why he adjusts the sizes and shapes in order to fit his theory.
The mystery is why in this case he does not adjust his theory to match the evidence rather than the other way around.
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - Gaius Julius Caesar - 07-12-2007
Quote:Gaius Julius Caesar:3919v457 Wrote:except thy are almost 2000 years old, are corroded together and not 100% intact? Who can truly say how they are supposed to fit? And is that the one where the hinges are riveted together so the hinge doesn't function? they are not new pieces by all account.
Yes they are corroded, but they didn't shrink. This isn't a t-shirt thrown in the dryer. There is no way that corrosion would make the pieces smaller. Just these breast plates. All of them more or less uniformly.
Face it the historical pieces can NOT fit together as Sean advocates. That is why he adjusts the sizes and shapes in order to fit his theory.
The mystery is why in this case he does not adjust his theory to match the evidence rather than the other way around.
Well, most armourer's would make armour to fit the intended wearer, so perhaps he has a good reason to make the plates larger, giving the size of some of his customers.......
A small bag of coins stashed by the armorer might be missed by the person who dumped it. Th armorer tells his lackeys to load some wagons while he heads out wit hthe main gear, and the lack looks in the box, says
'this pile of junk is going to slow us down, and it gets dumped....
so many possible reasons to dump junk.....
the 'good ' getting priority
or perhaps the coins were stashed by someone killed in a skirmish.....
or died of old age, and no one had really looked at this junk for a while, following Hadrian's reforms.......
:?:
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - Tarbicus - 07-12-2007
Back briefly to the original question.
A Corbridge Type B breastplate.
http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/arma/c ... uir05b.htm
I can't believe this thing hung vertically at the centre of the chest, as it would squeeze the wearer's neck to a few inches. It didn't even have a rolled edge at the neck.
This one, however, would be okay to hang vertically without cutting off the blood supply to the brain:
http://www.armatura.connectfree.co.uk/jrmes/j0601b.htm
Notably, it's an earlier Kalkriese type. Does this suggest that the armour developed in such a way that it was realised gaps were appearing when a soldier lifted his shoulders and arms, and injuries occurred as a result? Who knows, but it's a possibility.
What's most telling about these diagrams of the Corbridge A and B is that the connectors fastening the girth hoops to the breastplates are more towards the centre, which says to me that the breastplates had to angle inwards for the parts to attach.
Here's Mike Bishop's own drawing of a Type B:
http://www.romancoins.info/segmentata-r ... ct-mcb.gif
And Peter Connolly's Type A (note the width of the breastplates compared to where the girth hoops cross over at their centre):
http://www.legionxxiv.org/corbridgaenlrg/
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - sulla felix - 07-12-2007
Quote:Well, most armourer's would make armour to fit the intended wearer, so perhaps he has a good reason to make the plates larger, giving the size of some of his customers.......
Yes but all the plates should increase proportionately. Hibernicus's pictures clearly show that this is not the case in his segs.