Roman Full Plate Armor?

[Olaf]

OK as I see the discussion has returned to the crupellarius.
As I am more versed in gladiatorial matters then in metallurgy I hope I can again provide some input in this discussion.
The first place there are mentioned (and the only one were their name is given is the passage in the Annals above.
Know I not an expert in latin, but he mentions the following attributes for the Crupellarii:
"clad after the national fashion in a complete covering of steel"
Now the Gallic national fashion would hardly be considered wearing as l.Seg, as the Gauls were fare better known for their chain maile.
And a covering of steel - actualy a better translation would be iron - does in no way refer to any form of plates.
"slaves who were being trained for (as?) gladiators"
So presumably in this context they were outfittet in the same armament they would use in the arena.
This is signifficant as there are only a few types of gladiators known wearing body armor.
We have a depiction of scale armored equites from the 1 century CE, which later seem to only wear tunica.
From the 2nd century AD onward we see the Scissor as being armored either in scale or in mail fighting against the retiarius armed with the trident mostly in the eastern provinces.
Significant here is the fact that the Scissor does not carry a shield even though the twohanded Trident is considered as the most penetrating of all gladiatorial weapons.
"though they were ill-adapted for inflicting wounds, they were impenetrable to them"
Now this puzzels me the most, because why would you use soldiers that are not effective in actually hurting the enemy?
But in gladiatorial terms the swords were actually gradually becoming shorter during the first century AD, some maybe Tacitus is refering to this.
And them being impenetrable to wounds doesnt seem to hold true as we read later.
by implication Tacitus also writes that they are not "armed like our legionaries", so how would a leginary at this time be armed?

Now we look at Annals 40.46:

The men in mail were somewhat of an obstacle, as the iron plates did not yield to javelins or swords; but our men, snatching up hatchets and pickaxes, hacked at their bodies and their armour as if they were battering a wall. Some beat down the unwieldy mass with pikes and forked poles, and they were left lying on the ground, without an effort to rise, like dead men.

paulum morae attulere ferrati, restantibus lamminis adversum pila et gladios; set miles correptis securibus et dolabris, ut si murum perrumperet, caedere tegmina et corpora; quidam trudibus aut furcis inertem molem prosternere, iacentesque nullo ad resurgendum nisu quasi exanimes linquebantur.

Now this is interresting.
Here we see the aformentioned fighters in actual battle.
The translation doesnt seem to be clear if they were "in mail" or having "iron plates" so I would be gratefull if someone more knowlegable in Latin can give me a better answer.
Also they seem to have a good defense against thrown pila and stabbing gladii, but were overcome by the use of dolabris.
And they also had a problem with getting up once toppled over (though his might be an exageration, just like them being impervius to harm)

Now lets look at the statue (pictured in Junkelmanns book here before me).
Mike Bishops drawing seems to be correct in the details as far as I can tell from the small photo.
Junkelmann writes that i was found in a gallo roman shrine in Versigny and is dated to the first century AD.
He says that the statue seems to portrait a crupellarius refering to Picard but challenging Picards view of the statue portraing a blind fighter, because the helmet clearly shows holes.
Junkelmann consideres the banded armor parts to be segmented, but notes that the abdominal area and the hip does not show such armor, and supposes a shield has to be worn with the suit.
(Weapon and shield do not seem to have been found with the statue, but Junkelmann supposes there were items attached to the hands)

If the statue is indeed portraing a gladiator oly mentioned once in the Annnals, I am not sure If I woud identify the ines on the body as segmented armor at all.
Is there any l.Seg known where se shoulder segments meet in the middle of the breast as the vertical line seem to implicate?
Also the metal manicae known to us dont completely encase the arm or leg (leather and fabric manicae being a differnt story altogether) - but I haveto admitt its difficult to actually discern if the lines do go round the arms and legs without being able to see it in person.
Know the helmet is also very peculiar as during the beginning of the first century AD many gladiators still fought without visors that only gradually became full face protection during the second half of the first century.
Even then the construction seen on the statue with its many punctured holes is olny known from depictions and statues of gladiators from the second century onwards. Most notably those identified as Secutors.
Actually in statues these helmets show a pronounced ridge running vertically down the face...

Now I will leave the rest to your imagination as I will not jump to any conclusions from this, but might the crupellarii actually have been an early form of Scissors?
Even disregarding the Versigny statue a Scissor would be covered in metall (hamata or squamta going down over the knees + 2 short greaves and a helmet with only small eyeholes), be impervious to attack (armored against the trident), maybe even ill adapt to inflict wounds with the left arm only having the typical spherical knife attached and a sword in the right hand, and not very agile with that much armor and limited sight.

But still this is only my theory as almost nothing regarding the crupellarii can be backed up with certainty.