06-10-2008, 02:49 AM
Juan,
That is why I mentioned the customer. You are correct with respect to SCA.
However, you mentioned going thinner for reenactment not for combat. The originals in the ranges I mentioned are for combat not for show. (I just do not remember if it is 20 or 22)
Roman legionary armor is not as thick as supposed. Many original helmets were something like 20 gauge. They were used in combat.
Brass scales for scale armor were .25-.3mm thick. But when staggered an layered, they went to about 20 gauge thickness and more at times but not 18 gauge. (AFAIK).
Now if you are referring to SCA, then yes, the thicker the better to protect the wearer.
But if you are implying that 20 or 22 gauge brass is not for battle, then this assumption is not entirely correct.
We know that gladiator armor could have been and was at times thicker than legionary armor.
That is why I mentioned the customer. You are correct with respect to SCA.
However, you mentioned going thinner for reenactment not for combat. The originals in the ranges I mentioned are for combat not for show. (I just do not remember if it is 20 or 22)
Roman legionary armor is not as thick as supposed. Many original helmets were something like 20 gauge. They were used in combat.
Brass scales for scale armor were .25-.3mm thick. But when staggered an layered, they went to about 20 gauge thickness and more at times but not 18 gauge. (AFAIK).
Now if you are referring to SCA, then yes, the thicker the better to protect the wearer.
But if you are implying that 20 or 22 gauge brass is not for battle, then this assumption is not entirely correct.
We know that gladiator armor could have been and was at times thicker than legionary armor.
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
Paolo
Paolo
